📯〕council-chambers

[real thorn]

Council Meeting Concluded: Will Get notes out ASAP

[real thorn]

August 3rd Council Meeting Notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P2XviLU-kydIFoPzaqaoVi35LDSuDgj82ERgwy2rYG4/edit?usp=sharing Sorry for the delay

[languid ibex]

Approved IIP-24

The new revised sale for Illuvitars made by the team I believe is a great change and will be something unique compared to other PFP projects. Really happy to see the community get behind waiting for albums, I believe it will boost sales during the process.
Can't wait to mint this out on IMX

[crude minnow]

Approved IIP-24
This IIP takes a big step forward technologically to move to layer 2, increase utility of Illuvitars, while broadening accessibility. Thanks to the community for weighing in so strongly to wait for the album/collection feature. Beyond community preference, I believe waiting to launch a more complete Illuvitar project will optimize sales for the DAO, increasing the perceived utility while also tapping into different players/consumers more interested in gamified collection products. Shipping a more complete product further reinforces how Illuvium is different, launching high quality art with a purpose, driving one complete ecosystem.
For these reasons, community preference, maximizing initial DAO revenue, and upholding Illuvium’s image and core principles, I am supportive of this IIP.
As we move forward with many different aspects of Illuvium, my focus is to ensure a meaningful launch cadence, ensuring each product has sufficient time to provide excitement, news, and revenue. There are many exciting products coming, and we need to be thoughtful on launch order and timing between events. I will continue to work with the council and team to plan the rest of this critical epoch for the overall good of the DAO.

[shy hedge]

IIP-24 Illuvitars Sale Revamp

I vote YES on this Proposal

This is the best proposal for Illuvitars for the DAO and has been shaped and moulded by the Communities input, what a wonderful Case Study on Governance in action!

I see no downsides to this proposal and only upside and really appreciate the Communities Long-Term perspective on this by voting to wait for the Album App to be ready on Illuvitar Launch!

LFG! 🔥

[kind kindle]

IIP-24

Voted yes on this proposal after extensive discussions with the council and team to optimize Illuvitars so that it captures new and a variety of users. The North Star is to bring in as many users and become the most popular game - full stop - and Illuvitars is a positive step in that direction.

Furthermore I advocated to delay the launch until the album is ready. We shouldn’t put undue pressure on the dev team at the potential expense of compromising quality/security so that is the most important element here and of future proposals imo

[real thorn]

**August 18th Council Meeting Notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/135d007A3km-6T4IExF0geKSVoazM3X5ZskGqtRRROZI/edit?usp=sharing **

[real thorn]

Waiting on final approval of Council Meeting notes from October 1 meeting and will post as soon that happens

[real thorn]

**October 1 Council Meeting Notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NJhH67UrI-f0fU8eLFKyFuf5X7IjEBKm-pUqN2jorGQ/edit?usp=sharing **

[real thorn]

**October 17 Council Meeting Notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GPZ1KCIkBMBxnOX7uuWmnn-QVMohrvMitWoXJ7hb5kk/edit?usp=sharing **

[real thorn]

** October 28 Council Meeting Notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G0zeVXx15p0kOcNnS8e635tJhDS28wwv/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=115053114625682940794&rtpof=true&sd=true **

[shy hedge]

IIP-25 Council Pay & Voting Mechanism

I have Voted Yes on this proposal!

Reasoning:

• The Changing Council Pay back to ILV instead of USDC part of the proposal is recommended by Danny, Illuviums Chief Financial Officer, and I understand and approve of his reasoning for this change
  -The Voting Mechanism being changed to a Blind Voting System I approve and am personally very pleased to see as I have been advocating for this change for over half a year and although its a very small change I believe this makes Illuviums Council Voting System a lot better, less exploitable, takes away biases created by being able to see who others have voted for already (until after the voting period ends)

If anyone has any further questions on my reasoning feel free to @ me and ask me publicly in an appropriate chat in this discord or DM me if you'd prefer (always open)

[crude minnow]

I have voted yes on this proposal.
I completely agree with the rationale shared by @shy hedge above. As the community has shared many times, we need to enable those best informed on the situation to guide our actions. Illuvium’s CFO, Danny, shared with the council that preservation of stablecoin was best for other expenses, and it is therefore better to pay the council in $ILV. As I shared in the governance channel upon the approval of the previous change, both are financially identical to the DAO. Therefore, it makes sense to approve this conversion from $USDT back to $ILV.
Regarding voting, I have long been a proponent of blind voting, as we have witnessed the impact of visible voting in previous elections, where seeing the results impact the results. I’m very excited for this next election to truly reflect the will of the Illuvium community.
Seeing no major opposition to this proposal from the community, this was a clear affirmative vote in my opinion and from what I observed in governance chats.

[real thorn]

** Council Meeting Notes Nov. 11 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XAB2k4D2zEo9iUj9z_kVe8brGJYRhdyTWRewlVgmF9c/edit?usp=sharing**

[crude minnow]

IIP-26 Staked and Vested Voting
I vote in favor of this proposal.
After reviewing the data from the previous election, only fewer than 1% of past participants are impacted by the change to require staking in order to vote. While this change does not fully prevent Sybil attacks, it does increase the cost and difficulty of doing so. Further, in my personal opinion, a minimum of one month staking to be able to participate in DAO governance feels very reasonable.
See my analysis on perspective impact from the June 2022 election here.
#1041793951503499335 message

[shy hedge]

** IIP-26 Staked & Vested Voting**

I have voted YES on this proposal

My reasoning is that upon further investigation of past epochs voting we have found that only a minimal number of votes were ever placed by non-staked wallets anyways and so very few people would be affected by this change whilst also giving governance and elections greater security against a sybil attack.

in the last election out of the 760 wallets that voted only 7 wallets voted using un-staked ILV, that is less than 1% of all voting wallets that would be affected by this change

due to the recent anomalous uptick in wallets holding ILV I believe this change makes sense and has little downside

[languid ibex]

Approved IIP-26

It is an improvement for the current voting process and further protects against sybil attacks

[real thorn]

Council Meeting Notes December 7
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18AkC64hX1l3px-T2EXgGQWZdvjLpCdPR48Mtw1uiyEo/edit?usp=sharing

[real thorn]

**Supplemental Council Meeting Notes Dec 11 ** https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bcIofFgGVnQ6SOOUPx8oZybklNvnealsEkDVXPqHPek/edit?usp=sharing

[green magnet]

Approved IIP-27 Spider Illuvial
I am voting to approve this IIP, with reservations below.

Premises
*My personal preferences should always be subordinate to the DAO when voting on an IIP.
*We should always consider both short and long-term ramifications of a decision.
*Community sentiment is heavily in favor (~3:1) of this IIP.
*The team has indicated this is technically feasible in a future set.
*I personally am terrified and disgusted by spiders…No, seriously…Like illogically, scream like a girl, grab-the-vacuum to kill it scared.

On it’s face, this is a pretty easy decision. The community is heavily in favor of this, we have an easy chance to show how decentralization works, and it’s a simple change.
My holdup is that this sets the precedent for hundreds of game balance and content IIPs to be submitted in the next few months before we have an appropriate structure in place to support it. This is one of the reasons I’ve been so keen on getting Governance V2 out. My expectation is that on any given day we will have literally dozens of ideas and IIPs that players will introduce once gameplay is out for all 3 titles (Arena, Overworld, and Zero). Anyone that has been active in a passionate gaming community knows to expect this as well. The proposal of a ‘Gameplay’ subcouncil in Gov V2 intended to oversee these sorts of topics is intended to allow more minor topics like this to be addressed appropriately. Additionally, the process for making more robust the transparency for how a topic moves from an ‘Idea’ to an ‘IIP’ and the technical solutions behind it needs more development.

[green magnet]

That said, I am approving this IIP because we do not have those structures in place, and we haven’t defined with the team and the community how that process should work. It is important that we recognize our decentralized structure. But if we begin to receive more IIPs under Gov V1 for many small gameplay types of requests, my intention is to respectfully decline those unless necessary for a critical purpose for gameplay. Someone’s perspective that rogues are overpowered and should be nerfed or that there are too few shard deposit locations in the west of Crimson Waste are essential feedback to go to the dev team for game balance. It’s not a generally effective use of the council’s time in the current structure when those topics must be weighed against runway concerns, governance structures, partnership authorization, and overall game release dates. So I will continue to focus on getting the structure in place so a specialized council can work with the development team on bringing this type of community sentiment in a more sustainable process.
And since I also hate spiders, @daring tendon we can just agree to not use them in our decks in the Arena.

[real thorn]

Council Town Hall Recording
https://youtu.be/8juuZFAJaFo

[rain aurora]

IIP-27 Spider Illuvial
I Approve this proposal.

Spiders are rad. This is a simple IIP, and it was created to demonstrate that the DAO can overrule the preferences of even a co-founder. The proposal is drafted in such a way as to not impede game development, and for those reasons I have approved this proposal.

While this is a simple IIP, it catalyzed discussions about how we will handle a high volume of community created gameplay proposals in the future. Every time a change is proposed that alters gameplay, adds skins or introduces cosmetics, we have the potential to limit the team's design space, which is something I'm wary about as a gamer. It's clear to me that the DAO will need a better system in place to enable review of large numbers of these proposals. It's also clear to me that having direct team input during that review will streamline this process, as the team is absolutely best qualified to make statements about whether certain types of gameplay elements would be thematically appropriate for a given set, or whether the art team has time or interest to develop a certain Illuvial within a timeframe.

Such a system does not yet exist, and so it falls to this council to make a decision.
The team has indicated that there will be no more scope creep in Set 1 (implying that this could be implemented in Set 2 at the soonest), and this IIP is compliant with that statement. #1037284497735036998 message

I would like to consult with the game/art design teams to identify an optimal way for proposals of this nature to be presented in the future. I will continue to evaluate gameplay related proposals on a case-by-case basis, with the caveat that I will be especially critical of any non-essential proposals.

[signal swallow]

IIP-27 Spider Illuvial
I Approve this proposal.

Although this proposal is rather basic, I think it speaks true volumes that the community can write any proposal they wish and then governance, and by extension the council will move it further down the pipeline. Given the proposal had a mountain of community backing I don't see a reason why this should be denied. Personal biases aside (I am crazy scared of spiders and get my gf to kill spiders for me) the key takeaway here for me is that there is no technical restriction on the development and art team to create a spider illuvial if it doesn't make sense. Although I like that it doesn't impede the game design process it shows the community's voice and I want to continue to promote and foster that as Illuvium continues to mature and grow.

My other major piece of reasoning is in my experience spider characters have proven to be some of the most popular and create memorable moments for gamers in a variety of video games and genres. Quite frankly the only scene I remember vividly from Harry Potter was in the Chamber of secrets (IYKYK). For this reason it is important to put the interests of the DAO and the future gamers we want to see playing Illuvium above everything else. Furthermore we have already proven that the team is plenty capable to handle things with unusual limb structures given Squizz is a prime example.

The last thing I'll say is I want to do everything in my power to avoid impeding the community in giving genuine advice and crafting feedback and proposals like this one that will make Illuvium better than anything else in the world. It is something that has never been done before and I want to cultivate the determination here without causing harm to the design team and their priorities. I know this will be a healthy debate moving forward as we structure the DAO in a way that incorporates as much community engagement as possible.

Illuvium is a team made up of EVERYONE.

[crude minnow]

IIP-27 Spider Proposal

I have voted no on this proposal purely on procedural grounds to avoid creating a precedent for proposals of this scope and nature.
I largely agree with the comments of my co-council members. Above everything, I want to ensure the community is encouraged to share and build ideas. However, the correct structure needs to be implemented to effectively manage ideas of all types, and the current system is inadequate to handle ideas such as this. Voting to approve such IIPs sets a poor precedent for the future.
During this epoch, I hope to further expand and improve the governance structure to enable ideas at this level to be adequately received and cataloged for implementation by the team. There must be a more appropriate and commensurate use of DAO resources for ideas of at this level, and the council should be empowered to decline voting on ideas where justified for insufficient scope.
Running for council, one of my key promises was to enable the team to deliver successful products. While this idea does show the will of the community, approving this IIP and others like it in the future hold the potential to negatively impact and distract the team at this critical time.

On a personal side, I would love to see spider illuvial(s) in the future, though I also trust the team to ensure such an illuvial and other expansion ideas (from the community and team) can be effectively integrated into the lore.

[real thorn]

Council Meeting Notes <t:1671593400:F>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZMaKfIKeWB98B0lZMvFD4EUJlg2m3s5MGzMFjx7NAlc/edit?usp=sharing

[rain aurora]

ICCP-2 - Reduce Council Pay by 25%
I approve this proposal.

While the overall impact of this proposal on Treasury ILV holdings is relatively small, this proposal serves more function than to just save Treasury ILV.

It's become apparent over previous epochs that a widening distrust was growing between the council and the community, for a variety of reasons, including council pay and communication. The current council has been making efforts to improve communication, but I believe a reduction in council pay is warranted as well. It bears repeating that I will only be accepting $1500/month for this epoch, unless a proposal reduces pay below that level.

It is extremely important to me that the community can place trust in the council to make decisions that are in the best interest of the DAO. The council are representatives of the community, and it's logical to me that council members should be willing to make personal sacrifices, such as reducing their own pay, when times are tough. I regard service to the DAO as both a privilege and a responsibility, and I hope this proposal can be another step towards fostering improved relations and trust between the council and the community.

[rain aurora]

IIP-28 Withdrawal of Sushiswap Liquidity
I approve this proposal.

The intent of this proposal is to increase stability in a turbulent market, and protect the health of the DAO from unforeseen risks. This is balanced against the potential for upside price movement in the Treasury's SLP holdings. While it's possible that a greater return could be realized by holding Treasury SLP tokens until the next bull market, that doesn't help protect against risks in the present.

The past year has been filled with black swan events such as failure of FTX, rising inflation rates and general uncertainty in the marketplace. I'm not confident about the overall health of markets prior to game launch, but I am confident in the value of the Illuvium team. I feel the best path forward is to ensure stability for the team developing these amazing games.

Swapping the ETH component of the Treasury SLP position for USDC will increase stability, allowing the team to continue developing games with confidence that they will have the support of the DAO. Runway stability is important for both retaining existing employees and pursuing new employees, and I regard those elements to be of critical importance. It also creates more space for marketing prior to the launch of the games, which will be an important element of the adoption of Illuvium's titles.

In summary, I view this proposal as being in the best interest of the DAO, as the success of the games being developed has always been the crux of the success of the DAO, and the success of the games depends very much so on the team developing the games. Let's enable them to keep building with confidence.

[crude minnow]

**ICCP-2 - Reduce Council Pay by 25% **
I approve this proposal.

The council serves as critical function for the Illuvium DAO, and compensation of these roles is essential both to attract appropriate talent while also reinforcing expectation of council contributions. However, given the broader market conditions and current economic challenges prior to the successful launch of revenue bearing products, it important that the current council also demonstrate our commitment to the longevity of the project.
While the new council has made exceptional strides towards greater visibility and clear demonstration of our value, I vote to affirm this decrease in compensation as a show of good faith to the DAO and the community.
I will continue working to further adjust the council compensation structure to ensure even stronger incentive alignment, particularly to the long-term appreciation of $ILV price. However, the community support and simplicity of this adjustment justify approval today and work towards further improvements in the future.

[crude minnow]

**IIP-28 Withdrawal of Sushiswap Liquidity **
I approve this proposal.

This is the first in a series of proposals that extending the runway (i.e., funds directly available to support development costs) providing confidence to sustain development prior to releasing successful revenue-bearing products. In this case, I affirm agreement to convert the ETH component of liquidity tokens held by the DAO to USDC. This is an appropriate conservative decision to help provide confidence in both the community and core contributors to navigate challenging economic times.
While potentially foregoing upside of ETH appreciation, holding stablecoins mitigates further black swan events damaging the overall market. As a significant portion of the treasury remains held in $ILV and the past tendency for Ethereum tokens to move directional together suggests that a positive turn in the market would also likely result in an increase in economic value of the treasury.
This solution has minimal negative impact to current $ILV holders and stakers while offering a tangible extension of development time. Should future changes in Sushi liquidity pool depth occur, the council would need to consider remedies based on information at that time.
For now, providing assurance and increasing stability is of paramount importance. Therefore, I am supportive of this proposal.

[signal swallow]

ICCP-2 - Reduce Council Pay by 25%
I approve this proposal.

I believe the rationale listed within the ICCP sums up my feeling on the subject. - 'It is imperative that the DAO continually evaluate the compensation of council members to ensure alignment of expectations and compensation to attract the best talent to lead the DAO, while ensuring funds are used appropriately.'

It is our job not only as a council but a community to ensure the protection and success of the DAO. In this case it makes a lot of sense to reduce council pay as a show of force particularly as a united front. Protecting the treasury is fundamental to the DAO's success and this is a good way to begin that process. I do believe however that there will come many times over the next 5+ years where the council needs to consider the best interests of attracting the right people onto the council and I expect pay to change. This may not necessarily take the form of an increase but there are more complex ways to align the incentives of the DAO and the council in such a way that they are both as successful as possible.

In the future I'd like to see not only delayed compensation but some level of percentage based system in terms of the treasury or revenue generated that keep the two interconnected as long as this doesn't create a disconnect from the community. This balance is a difficult one but as the game generates revenue and Illuvium grows, every component of Illuvium will have to adapt and evolve.

[signal swallow]

**IIP-28 Withdrawal of Sushiswap Liquidity **
I approve this proposal.

Crypto moves VERY quickly and I cannot stress that enough. There is no way to predict what will happen next week let alone next year and this is the first in many efforts to play particularly safe when it comes to protecting the DAO as a whole.

There is no immediate downside to removing the liquidity from the pool and if we discover that in 6-12 months we require it again and haven't created a solution from the many that have been discussed in the past we will likely have the opportunity to provide liquidity once more. Removing this liquidity will however protect the DAO further incase there is any further turbulence in the market.

The council is not in a position to try and guess the market movements, even if we had the 'best' traders in the world on the team it wouldn't change the objective of this proposal in a sense that adding USDC to the runway makes the DAO healthier. This is beneficial for both those working for the DAO and those invested in the DAO. The one true reality of crypto is that building in a bear market is unpredictable and difficult. This move makes that task significantly easier.

It is also easy to forget that the DAO is already hedged to the upside given they hold a significant amount of money in a volatile crypto token (ILV). It does not feel logical to measure risk in removing liquidity early by the off chance crypto moons next week. By mitigating as much risk to the downside as possible it enables further confidence in the DAO and allows those working for the DAO to do their jobs without worrying about the dozens of occurrences that happen in the crypto markets every single day.

[green magnet]

**IIP-28 Withdrawal of Sushiswap Liquidity **

I approve IIP-28.

This is a simple, yet effective IIP to inject some additional liquidity into the project’s runway. The funding originally came from the treasury and it’s only a question of timing for when it should be returned. As has been discussed at length in the community, until revenue is steady post open beta launch of the games, any additional steps that can extend our runway should be considered. This is a clean way to do so that does not negatively impact ILV holders and allows us to reduce the need for other actions to mitigate long-term risks to project stability.

The only meaningful concern/question that has been raised is if the timing is right (I.e. should we wait for the price of ETH to increase). Despite the presence of many Web3 OGs and a finance team that has a strong pulse on the economy, Illuvium is not a market-timing DeFi protocol. We should allocate resources into the treasury when needed and now is the right time. Others IIPs and ICCPs will continue to be reviewed to expand the flexibility of the project and will be given the priority and gravity needed to ensure we are positioned well to be successful for years into the future.

[green magnet]

ICCP-2 - Reduce Council Pay by 25%

I approve ICCP-2.

Based on all current financial projections, there will be additional sacrifices required of the community, team, and investors in Illuvium before the in-game revenue is fully capable of covering monthly expenses. As a leader in an organization, you must always be willing to make personal sacrifices earlier and greater than those you ask of others in your care. I and the other current council members recognize this and have the best long-term interest of the project in mind. While the overall effect of the reduction is small to the project (less than 0.1% of treasury ILV on an annual basis), the signal and mindset is critical in the current state of development. I encourage the community to judge the actions of this council on our own merit and remember this ICCP if hard decisions prove to be needed down the line. We are all in this together.

My long-term position on council compensation is that the commmunity is responsible to elect individuals to the council who will rise to meet the needs of the project in a way that justifies a higher compensation level. Compensation is always a highly emotional, personal, and complex topic and should be handled professionally.

In the future, I caution the community not to view council compensation as a zero-sum game. Select the right people, support them through community engagement and ideas, and enable them to successfully steer the vision and strategy alongside the community and team. If done right, their worth to the protocol should be orders of magnitude higher than any discussed compensation. Remember that in life, you generally get what you pay for.

[daring tendon]

ICCP-2 - Reduce Council Pay by 25%

I approve this proposal, and I'm immensely pleased to see the council members sacrifice for the DAO, especially when I see the most contribution out of any Epoch in our history.

We're nearly ready to introduce Governance V2, which will decentralise us further and provide additional transparency to the community. That has not been without considerable time and effort from council members. I thank all of them for their actions, and as a community, we should be proud that they are willing to sacrifice their pay while contributing to the betterment of the DAO.

IIP-28 Withdrawal of Sushiswap Liquidity

The initial seeding of the Sushi Pool was only temporary so withdrawing it now while we look at solutions to increase the DAOs runway makes sense. LPs will increase their percentage and earn more fees, making it a win for everyone.

[green magnet]

ICCP-3 Defining Vault Revenue and Distributions

I approve this proposal. It provides needed transparency to the community about which costs are excluded from revdis. The intent here is unchanged from the original purpose of the revdis structure but now that more potential income sources are identified and on the horizon, it became essential to specify how those would be handled in greater detail. Unit costs must clearly be excluded from revdis for physical merchandise (and similarly additional overhead costs for items like real-life events). This ICCP sets up the framework and allows for a clear framework to be used for future activities the DAO may engage in.

[rain aurora]

ICCP-3 Defining Vault Revenue & Distributions for Future DAO Product Directions

I approve this proposal. This is a common sense expansion of the original definition for revenue distribution. It allows the DAO to pursue new product directions beyond information products. Additionally, this proposal requires future products to specify what category they will fall under (negligible cost vs. non-negligible cost), which is good for transparency.

[crude minnow]

ICCP-3 Defining Vault Revenue and Distributions
I approve this proposal. As I stated in the initial draft, the Illuvium DAO and its product scope has expanded significantly since the its inception. As such, prior to the broad launch of various product streams, it was essential to clarify the definition of revenue from greatly differing products. This was is critical for three reasons.

1. Enable revenue distributions in a sustainable manner to maintain long term operation of the DAO
2. Uphold the commitment to quality in all products associated with Illuvium
3. Ground $ILV staker expectations for revenue distributions
   I believe this proposal clarifies distribution for the current scope, while providing a framework to define revenue distribution for future product streams.
   Thanks to the community for the broad support and understanding of this clarification.

[signal swallow]

ICCP-3 Defining Vault Revenue and Distributions

I approve this proposal. I think it is important to further define the core structure that Illuvium is built on and this proposal effectively manages this. Revenue distribution in its current form was sustainable under the premise of purely digital products such as the overworld and Illuvitars. However it is clear that Illuvium is building much more than just that. Fostering the strength the Illuvium IP will bring and ensuring the DAO and its systems are sustainable as they move into the future is undeniably important.

This ICCP helps give further clarity to these systems that ensure to not detract from the revenue that the original concept promised to investors. It also leaves individual products open ended incase there are new products that haven't yet been thought of. Since this protects investors and the DAO then approving this proposal is simple.

[crude minnow]

IIP-29 and ICCP-4 Establishing Safety Pool and Diverting Illuvitar Revenue to fund the Pool
I approve these proposals. The community has shown strong support to the long-term vision of the DAO, and establishing the Safety Pool provides greater resource stability and flexibility to ensure the proposed products come to fruition. In strong collaboration with community members and appropriate core contributors, I am confident that the safety pool establishes much needed runway stability in challenging macroeconomic times, while maintaining a balanced commitment to all stakeholders.

[rain aurora]

IIP-29 - Safety Pool and ICCP-4 Divert Revenue from the Illuvitar Sale

I approve these proposals. I believe the Safety Pool to be the best option available to the DAO for financial flexibility, and I believe that diverting revenue from the Illuvitar sale is the best option available to the DAO for revenue diversion to fund the Safety Pool. Having these funds on hand will ensure the DAO is best equipped to launch core products regardless of market trends. I'd like to thank everyone in the community who contributed these ideas, collaboration like this is what makes us an effective DAO. We are truly at our best when we're working together.

[signal swallow]

IIP-29 and ICCP-4 Establishing Safety Pool and Diverting Illuvitar Revenue to fund the Pool

I approve these proposals. When it comes to diverting the Illuvitar revenue and any revenue in general I take the circumstances very seriously. I wouldn't be approving this proposal if it weren't for the added flexibility of the safety pool meaning that we can maintain the security of preserving the runway without directly taking funds from stakers. We are left with all of our options in tact just in case we need them.

The core reason I approve this is as follows: I know how difficult it is to find talent in any industry let alone the creative/gaming industry. We have seen what Illuvium can accomplish in under 2 years and it has surely broken world records in the game development industry for a studio of this size. That also means that we have many competitors that would seek to take these talented individuals we have all grown to know and love. Without these individuals, we have no studio, and no game. In that sense I see things like providing them job security as a dire measure to make sure the game gets built to the standard that is required to revolutionise the gaming industry.

[green magnet]

IIP-29 and ICCP-4 Establishing Safety Pool and Diverting Illuvitar Revenue to fund the Pool

I approve both proposals. Because the safety pool allows us to watch and determine if the funds are actively needed, it provides flexibility (if not needed) and security. The runway amount is reasonable and strikes an appropriate balance between security for the project and not pulling excessive funds away from revdis. The ability to capitalize on hiring additional talent during a down market will pay dividends in the long-run.

[rain aurora]

IIP-30 Proposal for the Sale of Illuvitars

I approve this proposal.

There are 2 parts to this post, the former is a look at what happened, and what we're doing to ensure it doesn't happen again. The latter is my reasoning for approving this proposal. I believe the community deserves to hear both. Sorry in advance for the length.

Firstly, as many in the community have identified, communication around alpha disks could have been better. One of the roles of the council, in my opinion, is to ensure the community is aware of product development, and to help facilitate and draft proposals to approve new products. In this scenario, we got it done, but not before information around alpha disks was shared. In that regard, I feel that I could have done better. The possibility of a miscommunication was something I had identified, but did not act to prevent. I could have done better, on a personal level, to ensure the community had an opportunity to discuss alpha disks before marketing material was released. We have a few ideas about how to prevent this from happening again that we may be able to share more about soon. I appreciate and agree with the perspective that the DAO should have the final say in what products we're developing and releasing, and we need to make sure we get the order right in the future. Discussion precedes marketing. I apologize for not being more pre-emptive.

Secondly, with regards to IIP-30's specification: A number of changes were made over the lifetime of this draft. Pricing was not right initially, but I believe we've rectified that in the current format. Fundamentally, we need Illuvitars to be a product people want to interact with, and pricing is a major factor in ensuring people are able to do so. Ensuring alpha disks are able to be held un-opened indefinitely greatly increases the reach and appeal of Illuvitars.

The primary remaining concerns I've heard voiced by the community are around the existence of alpha disks in the first place, and potential alternate formats for the sale.

With regards to the first point, whether alpha disks should exist at all - I believe the existence of alpha disks is important to ensure the DAO can maximize revenue. I think our potential to bring in revenue would be decreased if they did not exist. Looking at comparable products, there's a reason something comparable to alpha disks exist, and that reason is that there is a demographic who likes limited edition products, and is willing to pay for them. It would be a mistake to ignore that demographic.

With regards to the second point, I acknowledge that it's possible a better implementation could exist, but I don't personally believe we'll be able to say concretely what elements of the current implementation can be improved until after we've looked at data from the sale. I don't believe Illuvitars can be compared 1:1 with a TCG, but I also don't believe it can be compared 1:1 with an NFT profile picture project. We've arrived at a solution that is somewhere in between, and I believe it can't be substantially improved without more information. If there are issues with the format of the sale, we should do what our DAO does best - iterate and improve.

Thank you to the community for your patience, your respectful discourse, and your passion. Not every proposal will be perfect on first draft, but we will work to adjust and adapt to concerns raised.

[green magnet]

IIP-30 Proposal for the Sale of Illuvitars

I approve this proposal.

From a structural standpoint it gives us a product with mass market appeal that will engage collectors and is accessible to the vast majority of individuals worldwide. Many 7-year old kids that will be able to afford an $8 Illuvitar every month or two will become life-long fans. And those avid collectors that can spend thousands or even millions on the greatest collection of Illuvitars will have a truly epic experience buying and trading to build out each Wave.

And likewise, those who want to own exclusive items like Alpha Illuvitars and are willing to pay a high premium to do so are also catered to. And all of this is structured in the best interest of the DAO to continue to build revenue streams to build out the most extensive Web3 gaming ecosystem in the world…and Beyond.

We’ve learned a lot through this discussion and will have even more data to evaluate for Wave 2. But Illuvitars is completely unlike anything in Web2 or Web3 before it. So we’re breaking unchartered ground here.

I believe this IIP is a both a reflection on the power of decentralized governance and a demonstration of the maturation of our DAO processes.

The former because the results arrived at here are better than anything the team, council, or community each developed on their own. The latter because the dialogue, while passionate at times, was undoubtedly focused on finding an optimal outcome. Contrast this process and outcome with former challenging IIPs and consider how far we’ve come.

Here’s to our continued success as a DAO. See you at the Launch Party - and good luck finding that Holo Rhamphyre!

[crude minnow]

IIP-30 Proposal for the Sale of Illuvitars
I approve this proposal.
I second the comments of my fellow council members on this, and again want to thank the community for weighing in so strongly on all drafts of this proposal. This has been an intense week, but one that illustrates how Illuvium is different and paving the way for web3 governance. While there remain differences of opinion, the proposed solution offers sufficient advantages to optimize the overall initial offering for Illuvium Beyond.
Illuvitars have come a long way since their initial proposal, and the parameters that I voted to approve today greatly extend the reach and engagement of this product. For Illuvium to succeed, we must continue to bring more people into the DAO and its various games, and not only focus on those already in the community. On the contrary, we need to collectively examine who isn’t yet part of our community, and ensure products are configured in a way to expand our reach and interest. Illuvitars does that, offering appeal to multiple new demographics.
At the same time, while an important initial launch, these parameters are highly configurable and adjustments can be made in future waves to price, quantity, and more to continue refining our efforts to sustain and grow the DAO.
Thanks again to all for so quickly and freely sharing their opinions, and I look forward to seeing how our community can continue to shape Illuvium.

[signal swallow]

I approve this proposal.

I firstly just wanted to thank the community and council for all of their hard work in coming together as a single force and making this proposal as good as it can be. I will say that I believe this proposal fits all of the narratives extremely well and services the concerns of the community nicely. We may find after wave 1 of illuvitars that elements of it didn't work as well as expected and I know that the community and council in the future will continue to improve on it. It's easy to forget that Illuvium is doing many firsts. Not just in Web 3 but in all of gaming.

This proposal had to balance 3 key aspects. The collectables game, Web 3 NFT scarcity and the ability to market the product. By adjusting the alpha d1sks sale prices and timing we better aligned the first two aspects while still keeping them distinctly different. I am also very happy where we landed especially for the $8 price point of the non-alpha d1sks. This will allow the collecting focus of the product to shine through and enable many in the future to enjoy the IP of Illuvium. Although some might see Alpha d1sks as unnecessary they do enable an entirely different kind of collector to get involved with the project whilst helping Illuvium generate further revenue to benefit everyone. I also appreciate the 3 day sale period for alpha d1sks which I feel aligns well with the different incentives for different kinds of collectors.

I wanted to thank everyone again for sticking by us and trusting us to listen and respond to your feedback. We are always listening to what you have to say because then we manage to make the best product we possibly can. I believe this new Illuvitars proposal is testament to that and I can't wait until Illuvium Beyond evolves even further in the future.

[green magnet]

IIP-31 Cancel Su Zhu Illuvitar Battle

I approve this proposal.

Illuvium has a reputation for doing things the right way in Web3 gaming. When so many projects leverage unethical or even illegal approaches, this ethos must be protected. The originally presented "Illuvitar battle" not only places an Illuvium co-founder in direct connection with Zhu Su, but does so with the perception of an invitation and stage provided by the DAO.
It’s almost unanimously agreed that Zhu Su has demonstrated through his actions a callous disregard for his customers at a minimum. His actions possibly will show much worse if he ever appears at a trial but this isn’t the forum to discuss that. I take no position on the legality of any actions undertaken by Zhu Su, as the judicial systems of the world should be the final arbiters there. However, his well-established behavior is directly opposed to the ethos of Illuvium’s community-first focus.

By passing IIP-31, this ensures Illuvium is not establishing a direct connection between a new, exciting product and a figure with demonstrated behavior in opposition to our values. His mindset and approach has no place in Web3 if we want to improve as an industry and I believe Illuvium should stay far away from him, regardless of any potential loss in marketing. I have faith in Kieran to behave in a manner that reflects the ethos of Illuvium, but I do not think that can sufficiently mitigate the risk for our brand. Especially in such a format as this type of battle.
I would prefer to use an alternate mechanism and some of those will be available in Gov V2. For now, an IIP is the most appropriate tool at our disposal as it is the formalization of the DAO’s position.

[crude minnow]

IIP-31 Cancel Su Zhu Illuvitar Battle
I voted in the affirmative to cancel the proposed marketing event.

As a councilmember of Illuvium, I view my role as two-fold – listen to the community and do what is best for the DAO based on my experience and perspective, accounting for the sentiment of the broader organization. In this case, the community highlighted a concern associating with a controversial web3 figure, regardless of the official relationship between Zhu and the DAO.

The DAO has worked very hard to establish a reputation based on the vision of being different than other projects in web3, focused on quality products and doing things right to break from the broader public perception. The strategy applied to grow the organization must be consistent with this vision or it risks tarnishing the reputation at this very early stage of adoption.

In this case, placing a co-founder next to Zhu in marketing material and in an event facilitated by the DAO was inconsistent with the core vision of what Illuvium has set out to become. I am supportive of this IIP to cancel this event and again highlight the strength of the Illuvium community to speak out, be heard, and shape the path forward as a leader in web3 gaming and decentralized governance.

[signal swallow]

IIP-31 Cancel Su Zhu Illuvitar Battle

I approve this proposal.

I tried to come at this unique problem from a very objective and analytical point of view. I could view this emotionally but anytime there is a bad actor in this space it makes me truly sick to my stomach so putting bias aside was important for me. Ideally we would be having people come on for events like this that are from the Web 2 space and can help us reach those audiences that are imperative for the growth and success of Illuvium. We are not there yet. In that sense, someone outside of gamefi such as Zhu does make a lot of sense in terms of reaching new audiences for the Illuvium brand and Illuvium Beyond in general.

However I have many doubts about Zhu's 'following' and much like was pointed out in the discussions in ideas, Zhu's 500k followers don't convert on his twitter, not positively at least. In terms of engagement and new audiences I don't see any benefit in the long term. That being said I have been in content creation for long enough to understand how powerful and 'clickbait' controversy can be. This is likely negative long term but I give people more credit than to hate Illuvium for making interesting content, even if that interesting content was because of a controversial figure.

The third and most important point is the community was heavily against this battle taking place. I feel they represent the broad crypto community quite well. Half of the community members knew who Zhu was and said 'bad idea'. The other half asked who Zhu was because they were unaware. I would expect the broad community that doesn't know will soon find out during or after the event and I have seen many streams be comment bombed and the message of the broader stream get completely shattered based on a single comment or single decision. That risk isn't worth any amount of exposure.

I am also excited to see Gov V2 handle topics like this in the future, given it is more robust.

[rain aurora]

IIP-31 Cancel Su Zhu Illuvitar Battle

I approve this proposal...

Because apparently I have to do that to ensure we don't have the Illuvium brand associated with some of the parts of web3 we're trying to change.

I dislike everything about the way this situation has unfolded. I believe it is a misuse of our governance system to set up a situation where we MUST act to prevent something undesirable from happening. I believe there may be a fundamental disconnect about what Illuvium is trying to achieve, and how we accomplish that goal.

It's easy to get lost in numbers, marketing and the pursuit of virality. Illuvium is producing games - Games are a product intended to bring people joy. My personal preference would be to completely avoid figures who have caused pain, financial hardship and suffering through their actions. If we're going to change web3, we start with ourselves, and that includes being diligent about the people we associate our DAO with.

So, while I approve this proposal, I disapprove of this approach to marketing. I don't care whether it's effective or not, it crosses lines I don't believe should have been crossed. Our brand is now associated with SZ, and by extension, associated with web3 scams, theft and shadiness. We're being asked to believe that this proposal was the best way to prevent that. I don't believe that's true.

We can do better than this. We need to do better than this.

[green magnet]

IIP-32 Governance V2 v0.3

It is with great pleasure that I approve this proposal.

Making dramatic updates to Governance to position Illuvium for the coming years is one of the most critical steps we can take as a DAO. Last summer, I was captivated by the opportunity to imagine how the council could be reconstituted to better serve the incoming growth of the community and upcoming challenges. It was a privilege to work on, introduce, and now vote for this IIP.

This change furthers our decentralization by providing a much larger group of counsel members. It allows specialization among the councilors. It locks in a team member to the sub-councils and ensures no risk to the discussions ever being disconnected from reality. It provides a focus for IIPs to go to the three sub-councils so they can be effectively researched by relevant experts. And it sets the stage for more active months after game launch coming when DAO votes will come more quickly than ever.

This IIP provides the foundation of what can become a role model to others as a best practice structure of a functioning DAO framework. So long as knowledgeable individuals committed to the betterment of Illuvium are elected to the councils, we'll remain a positive example in the industry of what decentralization can be.

[rain aurora]

IIP-32 Governance V2

I approve this proposal.

Governance V2 is an important step for our DAO in many ways. It increases decentralization, it caters to the strengths of decentralization, it provides a scalable structure to continue building upon. It provides recourse for the community in the periods between elections. The structure itself mandates communication.

Governance V2 is a fundamental step in the journey to make Illuvium a strong, unique DAO, and a leader in the web3 space.

With that said, Gov V2 is not finished. It will likely never be finished. There will need to be updates as we move forward. This space evolves quickly, and we must remain agile and responsive. I believe Gov V2 to be the best implementation of a decentralized governance system that is possible today. Let's make sure we continue to improve it tomorrow.

[crude minnow]

IIP-32 Governance V2
I approve this proposal.
During my time serving the DAO, I’m most proud of having the opportunity to work with numerous very passionate, dedicated individuals to craft this proposal and governance model. Decentralized governance is thrown around in the web3 space, but turning the concept into reality presented many challenges. I sincerely hope this model serves as a blueprint to other organizations as they look to follow Illuvium as a leader not just in web3 gaming, but also in decentralized governance.
I look forward to seeing the first Gov v2 council, and the amount of specialization and focus it offers. May each new and future council member feel empowered to listen to the community and guide the project forward. I sincerely hope my role in creation of this IIP successfully replaces me with more qualified individuals as Illuvium continues to pave a path in this space, ensuring the best global representation from committed community members looking to better our organization.

[signal swallow]

IIP-32 Governance V2

I approve this proposal.

Although I didn't start up the Gov V2 doc I am well aware of all the people that put their time, heart and soul into developing something that is going to change the entire web 3 gaming landscape. On top of that I am super proud of both this council as well as the community for continuously revising and updating gov V2 through constant discussion and feedback. Gov V2 wouldn't be as polished and well thought out as it is now without the help of the community and them dedicating so many of their free hours to helping the DAO become as good as it possibly can be.

I also want to mention that Gov V2 may never be completely perfect and will need to be improved upon and adjusted in the future but it will be significantly easier to continue to improve on it from the strong place we have gotten it to at this point. It carefully defines the new structure and purpose of each of the sub councils in such a way that is both easy to understand and clarifies for any unexpected outcomes of future elections and proposals.

I am extremely excited to see Gov V2 implemented for future epochs because it will increase the amount of talent and broaden the skillsets for those participating in governance and make the DAO 10 times stronger and far more decentralised. The more brilliant minds that have a role steering the DAO in the right direction then the more ideas and opinions are shared. I can't wait to see what this new found power will do for not only streamlining future communication between the team, council and community but creating proposals that not only improve the game but allow the project to continue to evolve and take over the entire crypto space.

Thanks everyone for making this a reality!

[daring tendon]

IIP-32 Governance V2

Approved

Governance V2 marks a pivotal moment for our DAO as it prepares for unprecedented growth and addresses upcoming challenges. The collaborative efforts of our passionate and dedicated community members have led to the creation of a governance model that not only embodies decentralisation but also serves as a guiding example for others in the web3 space.
This proposal enhances our DAO in several vital aspects. It fosters greater decentralisation by expanding the council membership, enabling specialisation among councillors, and integrating team members within sub-councils for well-informed discussions. Additionally, it streamlines the IIP process by directing them to appropriate sub-councils with relevant expertise, ensuring effective research and timely decisions.

As we progress, it's crucial to recognise that Gov V2 is a work in progress—the rapidly evolving landscape of web3 demands continuous refinement and adaptation. Nevertheless, the current implementation of Gov V2 is a testament to our community's dedication, marking a significant milestone in our journey towards a more robust, unique DAO and establishing Illuvium as a leader in web3 gaming and decentralised governance.

One of the downfalls of our current Gov structure is that we sometimes need more expertise to make the most informed decisions; while this new structure doesn't fix everything, it prepares us better for Game Launch. I'm super excited about the formation of the first Gov V2 council and the diverse expertise it will bring. I hope each council member feels empowered to listen, engage, and guide our project as we break new ground in crypto. Let's build upon this strong foundation and ensure Illuvium remains a shining example of decentralisation, innovation, and collaboration.

And a big shoutout to all of the contributors who made this happen. We appreciated your contribution and were able to make this structure a reality with your assistance.

IIP-31 Cancel Su Zhu Illuvitar Battle

I chose to abstain from voting on this proposal, as I believed it to be essential to maintain impartiality given the potential conflict of interest.

---

IIP-30 Proposal for the Sale of Illuvitars

I voted in favour of this proposal, recognising that appropriate pricing is crucial for a card collecting game to succeed. Accessibility is vital for widespread adoption, and numerous waves within each set present opportunities to adjust. Reflecting on the pricing of the Alphas, I acknowledge it may have been set too high, and I trust that the council will address this concern in future waves.

IIP-29 and ICCP-4 Establishing Safety Pool and Diverting Illuvitar Revenue to fund the Pool

I was pushing this for a while; it makes more sense to divert revenues from a product that was never on our initial white paper/roadmap. Again, in hindsight, we will have to look to other options to increase the runway anyway, but it has certainly helped to have a steady stream of revenue come in so far.

It also demonstrates the community's commitment to the DAO's long-term vision, ensuring we have the financial resources and flexibility to deliver our promises.

By establishing the Safety Pool and carefully managing our resources, we can maintain a strong foundation for the DAO, empowering our team to deliver innovative products and experiences that redefine the gaming world.

ICCP-3 Defining Vault Revenue and Distributions

I support this proposal. It delivers the necessary transparency to the community regarding which costs are excluded from revenue distribution. As the DAO's product range has broadened, it became crucial to address how different income sources would be handled with greater specificity.

[crude minnow]

ICCP-5 - Initiate Governance V2 Transition

I approve this change to begin the transition to Governance V2.

It’s been about 5 months since @ruby iron asked this epoch’s candidates whether we would cut our term short when governance V2 was ready. It took longer than expected, though this new model of DAO leadership could not come at a better time. The governance v2 model has progressed to an excellent state, enhancing DAO leadership through further decentralization and specialization. I am incredibly proud of the team that made this possible, and the community for their honest feedback and encouragement.

Now comes the call to action. It is less than two weeks until nominations open for this model’s inaugural epoch. While the framework is in place, this will only work if dedicated, informed individuals of diverse talents and expertise step up to fill the many new roles. Governance v2 is ready, but like everything, it is progress not perfection, and the next phase will require work to further refine the model to the evolving needs of the DAO. That is up to **you **and the new council members to take on this challenge.

Please consider how you want to be involved, ask questions, and be informed. This is an exciting opportunity and I look forward to the many individuals coming together to advance the DAO towards its potential.

[rain aurora]

ICCP-5 Initiate Governance V2 Transition

I approve this proposal.

Governance V2 is ready for the community. Multiple of the improvements in Gov V2 would have found value this epoch, Illuvium's scope and the required expertise to make the right decision in different areas has expanded, and I believe Gov V2 is the right structure to handle the current and impending decisions.

I'll echo Deraji - Gov V2 is ready for the community, let's make sure the community is ready for Gov V2. As someone who ran for council unsuccessfully for 2 epochs before getting elected, I'd like to encourage anyone who understands Illuvium, has passion and drive to improve this project, and feels they can offer value to run for council. My experience this epoch has certainly taught me that a diverse group from a variety of backgrounds can be effective, and the DAO may benefit your expertise and perspective.

This is a super exciting time in Illuvium's history. The coming epochs will determine Illuvium's positioning in the gaming market, so let's knock it out of the park.

[green magnet]

ICCP-5 Initiate Governance V2 Transition

I approve this proposal.

We've never needed a better council than next epoch. There will be critical decisions forthcoming for all aspects of the protocol as we move into launch activities. Having a larger number of committed, knowledgeable individuals is critical to the sustained success of the DAO. Giving the maximum amount of time for potential candidates to come forward, community evaluation, and a smooth voting process for the additional sub-councils and main council is essential.

I've provided my thoughts on the Gov V2 structure here so won't repeat but finalizing the launch of months of work is always a great moment that we should celebrate as a community: #📯〕council-chambers message

Excited to see who steps forward!

[signal swallow]

ICCP-5 Initiate Governance V2 Transition

I approve this proposal.

I've always spoken in the past about how I'd like to see as much diversity and as many new faces in governance as possible and to see how far Gov V2 has come I couldn't be more excited.

Not only will it enable the opportunity for so many unique talents and experiences to come together to build something great but it will create better synergy between the DAO and development team. I'm excited to not only see all the new ideas that come in the next epoch but provide more opportunity for the community to really build Illuvium alongside the team.

I've always maintained that without the community, Illuvium couldn't be as great as its shaping up to be. Governance V2 makes it even easier for those who are particularly passionate in the community to make the project even stronger than it already is.

If you have a drive to make Illuvium the best damn game in the world then please nominate yourself for Gov V2, we are all on the same team and teamwork makes the dream work ❤️

[signal swallow]

ICCP-6 Illuvitar and Land Royalties

I reject this proposal.

I've been racking my brain on how I should approach this proposal and what it means for not just the DAO right now but in the years to come. As an individual I am very particular about things like this and once something has been promised to someone I am not fond of going back on my word. I understand that this topic is far more nuanced but this is how I see it. The royalties gained from Land secondary sales over the past 6 months or so in my mind have already been promised to stakers. However here is where it starts to get muddy. Had it reached the 500 ETH threshold before this proposal and more importantly, does it even matter? Based on the Illuvitars total volume and a 3% royalty It seems like it had only just surpassed 500 ETH in fees but that seems somewhat trivial now.

What's more important is the future looking aspects of what this proposal achieves. In good faith the community suggested to divert all Illuvitars revenue to the Safety Pool just incase its necessary. The DAO has the utmost respect for that decision and I admit that the previous proposal seemed relatively vague and it feels fair to be inclusive of secondary Illuvitars sales as well. However land was not included in any prior proposals and although I'd be open to diverting all Illuvitars secondary fees in the future I cannot in good conscience retroactively pull revenue distributions away from stakers it was promised to.

This would set a precedent that would personally make me uneasy as an investor in Illuvium and I have always been vocal that protecting the interests of stakers is really important to me. By completing an action that is retroactive and for all intensive purposes goes against the fundamental belief of the Illuvium ecosystem it sets a precedent that past proposals can be changed on a whim. When in reality the councils duty is to uphold the beliefs and principles of Illuvium and EVERYONE involved in the DAO.

[rain aurora]

ICCP-6 Illuvitar and Land Royalties

I approve this proposal.

I remain conservative about the macro situation in the coming months and years, and have noted that the community sentiment expressed is that the absolute highest priority is to ensure we can launch Illuvium's titles successfully. I share that sentiment, and believe we must do everything we can to ensure that comes to fruition.

Allowing revenue to escape now, to me, goes against the intent of the Safety Pool and overall risk management strategy implied by the Safety Pool. The DAO has brought this proposal forward and it has received widespread community support. This is an important consideration in this decision, as the community is affected by revenue diversion to the Safety Pool.

I believe diverting royalties now creates the maximum amount of freedom with regards to decisions that may need to be made by future councils. By diverting royalties to the Safety Pool, we leave options on the table. If we were to distribute royalties, there's no going back on that decision.

For these reasons, I have approved this proposal. I do understand that there are alternative ways to view the situation, but I think it's critical for ILV holders to know that, as a DAO, we are absolutely committed to doing the most we can to ensure we get products to market, and this proposal works towards that goal.

[crude minnow]

**ICCP-6 Illuvitar and Land Royalties **

I approve this proposal.

As my other council members shared in a split vote, this is a complex situation between what is best for development and what has been promised to stakers. However, as I shared during past election cycles, my paramount role is ensuring the team has what they need to deliver a successful product. While I am an advocate for increasing accountability regarding product development, I cannot in good conscience allow critical funds to be distributed at a tenuous financial time and broader market uncertainty.
While revenue distribution remains a core element of the Illuvium DAO, Bull market promises cannot supersede Bear market challenges. Like many organizations in current economic conditions, austerity is difficult but essential. I therefore uphold my fiduciary responsibility to the DAO and approve the royalty revenue from Illuvitars and Land to be redirected to the safety pool under the terms of IIP-29.
The Safety pool does not eliminate the potential of future distribution but holds funds in reserve. Withholding these funds is a reversable decision, while distribution is not. There remain many challenges and unknowns facing Illuvium, but it is not in the DAO’s best interest to make the regrettable decision to distribute these funds prior to a successful, sustaining revenue product launch.

[green magnet]

ICCP-6 Illuvitar and Land Royalties

I reject this proposal.

I am strongly in favor of including Illuvitar secondary sales in the safety pool as this was what I believe the community and I desired and intended beforehand and this represents more of a clarification of that intention.  However, I do not support the inclusion of land revenue retroactively.

If we were in an existential crisis for funding to continue the project, the decision would be different for me.  But given Illuvium's current financial state, I do not believe we find ourselves in that situation.  I believe we have flexibility to reasonably work through details of a capital raise and other revenue streams that are actively in progress to sufficiently cover any runway concerns without utilizing these funds after the fact.

I appreciate the sentiment with which this is proposed and it reflects well on the community taking a long-term view of the project.  If we had an ICCP with a split out of the two royalties streams, I would gladly support Illuvitar secondary revenue until the safety pool reaches our target and even future land secondary revenue.  As this is constituted I can't support it.

FWIW, this is by far the most difficult vote of the epoch for me.  Judging by the several hours of council discussion in and outside of meetings, it is likely true for some of my fellow council members as well.

[daring tendon]

ICCP-6 Illuvitar and Land Royalties

Initially, I was inclined to reject the ICCP-6 proposal, as I felt it was unjust to retroactively revoke distributions owed to stakers. The agreement for Illuvium: Beyond distributions was established before the product launch, while IlluviDex transactions were not. However, upon further reflection and engaging in discussions with fellow council members, my stance has evolved in favour of the proposal.

Although the capital raise is nearing completion, the funds have not yet been transferred to the treasury. It is crucial for us to act responsibly until this occurs. Our primary responsibility is to ensure adequate resources are available to fulfil our commitments to ILV holders and to maintain the safety pool as a contingency in case our financial position changes.

The DAO has consistently adapted policies to promote fairness, longevity, and the best possible outcomes for all token holders. As a pioneering gaming DAO, we possess the flexibility and power to make changes that benefit our community. By prioritising long-term growth over short-term gains, we distinguish ourselves from most other crypto projects.

We recognise the immense potential of this project and are dedicated to delivering the highest quality products at every opportunity. Ensuring the necessary resources and support are in place is critical to achieving success. Should our financial situation change, we can always vote to distribute the safety pool to stakers.

[rain aurora]

ICCP-7 Weighted Voting for Epoch Elections

I approve this proposal.

This proposal is primarily an added feature, with no fundamental changes to how voting works. It provides a means for ILV stakers to split their vILV voting power between multiple candidates within a sub-council, ensuring those stakers can have their preferences more accurately represented through their voting decisions. Voters who prefer a single candidate are still free to vote accordingly, and are unaffected by this addition. Additionally, I believe the UI elements associated with weighted voting are easy to understand, and should not cause confusion.

In a very minor way, this proposal may help protect against Sybil attacks, as someone wanting to vote for multiple candidates is now able to do so from a single staked wallet. With that said, thorough analysis of election results after the fact should still be completed.

It's imperative that blind voting be maintained for weighted voting to make sense - This decision makes sense at the current time, but I believe any potential future changes to voting need to be mindful of the idea that weighted voting would cause major issues if blind voting were not incorporated, as such a system would allow manipulation of voting. To clarify, blind voting is still being utilized in the upcoming election, and so this concern is forward looking, and not currently an issue.

Overall, I see weighted voting as a tool to provide more agency to voters, and believe it to be a net positive. For these reasons, I have approved this proposal.

[crude minnow]

ICCP-7 Weighted Voting for Epoch Elections

I oppose this measure by abstention.

Overall, I am strongly in favor of the concept behind this proposal. Enabling the ability to vote for multiple candidates in an election with a committee of winners is important.

However, Governance v2 already introduces significant changes and requires additional engagement from voters. As previous DAO elections have demonstrated, issues can arise that cause a restart which is highly detrimental to engagement and participation. The combination of close proximity to the election, significance of the change, and risk for the critical first Governance v2 election lead me to opposing this change for the current election cycle.

As guidance to future councils, ensure your voting wallet is accessible and not a hardware wallet. I needed to travel yesterday for an unexpected personal situation and did not bring my wallet, so I will be unable to formally vote within the three day period. I apologize for the inconvenience to the community and offer this as a word of advice to future council members.

[green magnet]

ICCP-7 Weighted Voting for Epoch Elections

I approve this proposal.

Weighted Voting is a quality of life improvement for our DAO members. The functionality to split votes already exists through the use of multiple wallets. It also 1) incentivizes that behavior for larger holders which circumvents the purpose of quadratic voting and 2) disincentivizes those who are less technically knowledgeable from doing so. Making this type of QOL improvement with the DAO not having to spend further resources to implement is an easy-win for me.

Another option that was discussed in the council included ranked choice voting. However, ranked choice voting only works effectively if you are voting on a single final selection, not an entire council so this is not a viable option for our council structure. Further changes to the voting process may come to be needed as we get into Gov V2 and the community should provide feedback on this process for discussion as the next Epoch begins.

I recognize Deraji's position and believe that because this change is an off-the-shelf feature of Snapshot (that I've personally seen used easily in other DAOs) the late timing poses very minimal risk. That said, his recommendation to avoid late-breaking changes like through the governance process is well-taken.

[signal swallow]

ICCP-7 Weighted Voting for Epoch Elections

I approve this proposal.

I think this proposal does nothing but add benefits to the current voting system. The current candidates for the next epoch cycle are all very well known in the community and every single one of them has qualities that would greatly benefit the DAO. However this view of candidates doesn't capture a very important element of the DAO. And that is the team and collaborative component of the council. I feel this was the core attribute to the council this epoch and whenever we worked well as a team it made everyone's lives easier and we were extremely successful.

In this way I believe allowing voters to consider this merit in the way they vote is very important. Its a strange analogy but many film studios hire cast based on their synergy with other cast members. I feel giving voters the option to split their vote amongst a cast of individuals that would mesh well together will better distribute the votes when it comes to tallying the results.

Although I recognise this may cause issues to voters who have trouble with the new system I do not think it will have a negative impact. Seasoned voters can still choose 1 person if they wish and there is no extra work for Illuvium Labs to complete in regards to implementing this system. I do hope that it has even more control in the future as Illuvium potentially works on its own unique systems but until then its a healthy and beneficial compromise.

[green magnet]

IIP-33 Trading Blackout

I approve this proposal.

This is a commonsense step to ensure we have both a policy and a relatively simple way to evaluate and handle anyone who would improperly use inside information (both team and council members). As discussed within the community, this is not a perfect solution as it can be difficult to identify who is the holder of a specific wallet. However, the presence of the blockchain improves the chance of identifying trades that could be in violation of the blackouts. I would like to see this IIP extended with an ICCP providing a few more guidelines (especially related to in-game assets) but feel this is not necessary at the moment. We have time and will gain more knowledge to create this framework as the game development continue to progress to open beta. In the meantime, this is a great starting point. It should be noted that this single action alone separate Illuvium from other projects within the sector that do not even have this basic safeguard in place.

[mystic pulsar]

IIP-33 Trading Blackout

I approve this proposal.

I agree with the feedback that this is not a perfect solution out of the gate, but I believe it is a strong foundation for setting the example that insider trading/misuse of insider information should not be par for the course in the web3 world. The industry as a whole catches a bad reputation for not having policies like this in place, therefore I am a strong advocate for Illuvium establishing it's own policies. In this way we demonstrate that Illuvium stands for fair markets, and that we are willing to go the extra mile to hold inappropriate behavior accountable. In short, in this specific case, I believe it's less about how perfect or enforceable the version 1 IIP is, and more about setting a positive example for the standards the industry should hold itself to.

[signal swallow]

IIP-33 Trading Blackout

I approve this proposal.

Although I expect this to be difficult to enforce on the participants I am rarely against the formalisation of clear rules and policies. I feel this proposal establishes clear guidelines for all those involved and some simple systems in place to help keep everyone honest. More transparency is always welcome in the Web 3 space and even though I never expected any current or past council members to contribute to the negativity in the space everyone being held more accountable is a good thing for promoting a healthy DAO.

[frosty forge]

Reposting since this is the proper forum 😄

IIP-33 Trading Blackout

As the main proponent of this IIP, I approve this proposal.

This IIP establishes the groundwork for a framework with the following objectives:

1. __Deterrent rather than enforcement __- Implementing a policy that explicitly notifies relevant parties about trading restrictions during blackout windows, rather than merely implying prohibition. People who are made aware of the policy are less likely to engage in such activities compared to those who are unaware.

2. Public Perception and Optics - Introducing a policy of this nature will foster investor trust and confidence, while also signaling our commitment to best practices within the industry.

3. Valid basis for disciplinary action - By having this policy and anyone subsequently violating it will give legitimate grounds to call for a vote of no confidence (for council) or removal for Labs team from the project.

4. Future Proofing - In the unlikely event that any jurisdiction introduces regulations on insider trading in the crypto space, we can distance ourselves from any individuals caught violating such regulations. Furthermore, our policy against this practice serves as a protective measure for the DAO.

The focus here is to serve as a deterrent and lay the foundational basis for future ICCPs to create a more robust policy. I fully anticipate that several ICCPs will be passed to address granular and nuance situations that may arise in the future.

[shy hedge]

IIP-33 Trading Blackout

I approve this proposal.

This sets an important precedent and although it is borderline unenforceable it is important to have in place so that Council Members are clear on what they should and shouldn’t do.

[solar plaza]

CSC Member
IIP-33 Trading Blackout

I approved this proposal.

Although enforcing a trading blackout period may present challenges, I support the proposal's underlying principles and the standard it sets for council members going forward. While it may be difficult to identify specific wallet holders, blockchain technology still increases the chances of detecting potential violations. It is always better to be proactive rather than reactive, and this approach is the first step against conflicts of interest and market manipulation. Overall, this proposal serves as an important precedent for the DAO and it's leaders.

ICCP-8 Add Alpha Stamp to Illuvitars

I approved this proposal.

Adding a more distinct Alpha stamp to Illuvitar portraits makes perfect sense. While there was indication prior it wasn't overly obvious and the information was obscure on third-party sites like Tokentrove. Having a more visible "stamp" helps enhance the exclusivity and desirability of Alpha Illuvitars. This distinction adds value to the Illuvium Universe as collectors seek unique and limited-edition items. Also, the addition of the Alpha stamp allows users to proudly showcase their exclusive Illuvitars, fostering a sense of pride and ownership.

[rain aurora]

IIP-33 Trading Blackout

I approve this proposal.

Much of my rationale is similar to existing sentiment expressed here. The community has in the past raised questions about whether trading using privileged information is possible, and it is our role to find solutions to prevent malicious trading.

I'll also echo that while this proposal is a good starting point, we will need to integrate revisions via ICCP as we identify and address nuisance cases, to ensure that normal, non-malicious trading of assets and tokens is still possible.

ICCP-8 Add Alpha Stamp to Illuvitars

I approve this proposal.

It's been apparent that there's a need for visual distinction between Alpha and non-Alpha Illuvitars since shortly after launch. An Alpha stamp meets that criteria, providing a visual way to indicate that the product differs from the normal variant. The community has largely been in favour of this change. While the Alpha stamp may be obscured on some social media platforms due to the round nature of PFP displays, it will improve understandability on the Illuvidex and within the Illuvium ecosystem.

This proposal has been directed to the Game Sub-Council for further review and approval.

[hoary widget]

IIP-33 Trading Blackout

I approve this proposal.

Public trust in the DAO is very important and this is the right step to ensuring no-one uses insider information for personal gain. This further enforces the Illuvium Council Code of Ethics elected members agree to uphold: “Illuvium Above All - I shall serve the DAO, putting the long term interests of Illuvium above my own personal interests”. This policy will guide DAO council members and Illuvium Labs team members to act with integrity.

Understandably, it is going to be difficult to enforce, but pivotal to have in place now.

Setting new policies and guidelines will be important this Epoch as we move forward with Gov V2 – and this proposal is a great first step!

ICCP-8 Add Alpha Stamp to Illuvitars

I approve this proposal.

This is an obvious requirement that needs to be implemented. Alpha Illuvitars are premium compared to the standard Illuvitars and as such, you need to see the distinction at first glance = [Alpha Stamp] (similar to first edition symbols on “trading cards”).

[deep tendon]

IIP-33 Trading Blackout

I oppose this proposal.

While I do support the idea that team and council members should not be using insider information for financial gain, I see problems with this solution.

It is very easy to create an anonymous wallet and account or simply pass insider information to a 3rd party without raising red flags. I believe if someone did want to game the system they will be able to do it and get away with it.

This may hinder freedom of speech internally. If a team or council member is simply participating in the ecosystem and makes a marketplace buy or sale, this action could be used as a means to remove that person from their role with Illuvium. Piss off the wrong person and you can be targeted and removed for a single innocent transaction.

This may also discourage great candidates running for council in the future if they feel this could negatively impact their ability to play the game and participate in the ecosystem.

If the system couldn’t be gamed so easily and there was more clarity on the rules and restrictions I would approve this, but in this proposals current state I see it causing more problems than it solves.

[hardy steppe]

IIP-33 Trading Blackout: I approve this proposal no one should get any advantages because they are on the Council, whether that be game wise or financially. Would be nice to expand on this Proposal in the future to sew up lose ends.

[sharp seal]

After reading all the above there isn’t much more to say..
I approve 👍

[supple halo]

IIP-33 Trading Blackout

I approve this proposal.

Much of my rationale is similar to existing sentiment expressed here.
Getting a framework in place to ease the concerns some might have regarding insider trading is a relevant and essential step to keep the confidence in the DAO and Council.
It will allow a basis for a vote of no confidence and ensure everyone is aware of consequences.

ICCP-8 Add Alpha Stamp to Illuvitars

I approve this proposal.

Adding a visual aid for the Alphas to be shown on other Platforms, e.g., Social Media, which is part of the value proposition the limited collecting has, is essential, and this implication meets all the wanted criteria.

[heady eagle]

IIP-33 Trading Blackout

I approve this proposal

I believe having this type of framework in place is an important step to take for a game in the Web3 place. Too many people have been burned in the past by bad actors and gaining trust with the community is very important as we approach Open Beta.
While it is difficult to enforce, the policy gives an official stance demonstrating that profiting from insider information as a council member will not be tolerated.

ICCP-8 Add Alpha Stamp to Illuvitars

I approve this proposal.

Given the scarcity and premium nature of the Alpha Disks it is important that they have a clear and proper status when being viewed.

[sacred thorn]

Given the messages of my fellow council members covering my reasons so well. I'll just say that I approve this proposal.

[sonic pawn]

IIP-33 Trading Blackout

I support the proposal for a trading blackout period. It is a sensible measure to prevent the misuse of insider information by Illuvium team and council members. While it may not be a flawless solution, it serves as an initial step and demonstrates Illuvium's commitment to addressing potential violations. By implementing this policy, we distinguish ourselves from other projects in the sector that lack these fundamental safeguards. It is a proactive approach to foster fairness and trust within the Web3 space, showcasing our dedication to transparency and responsible practices.

ICCP-8 Add Alpha Stamp to Illuvitars

I support this proposal to add an Alpha stamp to Illuvitars. It provides a clear visual distinction that enhances the exclusivity and value of these limited-edition items. The Alpha stamp meets the community's expectation for differentiation and allows collectors to proudly showcase their exclusive Illuvitars. It's a simple yet effective way to emphasize the unique status of Alpha Illuvitars within the Illuvium ecosystem.

[tawdry ledge]

IIP-33 Trading Blackout

I approved this Proposal.

This essential step aligns with the community sentiment and acts as a preventive measure against potential misuse of confidential information by the Illuvium team and council members. While it might not be an all-encompassing solution and enforcement could pose certain challenges, it provides a solid starting point. Thanks to blockchain technology, the probability of identifying potential wrongdoings is significantly heightened. This commitment to transparency and fairness distinguishes us from other projects lacking these vital checks and balances, setting a high standard for Illuvium. Nonetheless, we must consider this as a first step, with further refinement possible via ICCP to tackle nuisance situations and to ensure the continued seamless trading for non-malicious users.

ICCP-8 Add Alpha Stamp to Illuvitars

I approved this Proposal.

The introduction of an Alpha stamp to Illuvitars responds to the community's call for a distinct visual marker underlining the exclusivity of these limited-edition assets. This differential factor not only amplifies the appeal and worth of Alpha Illuvitars, but also enhances the usability on the Illuvidex and within the larger Illuvium ecosystem. The Alpha stamp allows collectors to conspicuously feature their unique Illuvitars, promoting a sense of pride and belonging. We should note, however, the potential limitations in visibility of the Alpha stamp on certain social media platforms due to the round PFP displays. Nevertheless, this distinct emblem addresses previously vague differentiation, particularly on third-party platforms, and is thus a valuable and much-anticipated change.

[livid spear]

I can only echo what my fellow council members have stated. I approve of both proposals ICCP-8 and IIP-33. 👍

[rain aurora]

[CSC] ICCP-9 Safety Pool Threshold

I approve this proposal.

The original Safety Pool proposal was passed to provide the DAO with a financial buffer as we move closer to Open Beta and launch. This amendment brings the total funding back in line with the original proposal, in light of the $10M capital raise with Framework. The sizing required has been reviewed by the Strategy Sub-Council in consultation the team prior to this recommendation.

As part of the DAO's overall risk management strategy, the sizing of the Safety Pool should be monitored and reviewed on an ongoing basis to ensure the DAO maintains an appropriate buffer against factors outside of the DAO's control, particularly in the period between now and Open Beta.

I acknowledge that some of the community would prefer a greater buffer, which would translate to a larger sizing for the Safety Pool. It is my perspective that a larger sizing would remain larger only as a formality, as filling a Safety Pool larger than $5M prior to launch is unlikely. Utilizing metrics such as burn rate and timelines provided by the team is a rational way to size the Safety Pool, and additional redundancy is built into this sizing.

This proposal will be directed to the Strategy Sub-Council for further review in the event it passes.

[solar plaza]

[CSC] ICCP-9 Safety Pool Threshold

I approve this proposal as well.

I am voting yes on the ICCP-9 Safety Pool proposal because it aligns our financial resources with the recent $10 million capital raise and ensures a stronger buffer for the Illuvium DAO. By lowering the threshold to $5 million and including current and future revenues, we can better protect against risks, capitalize on opportunities, and support the growth of our project. This adjustment reflects careful consideration of our financial needs and the team's assurance that we can operate effectively with an 18-month runway.

[livid spear]

[CSC] ICCP-9 Safety Pool Threshold

I approve this proposal and agree in passing it along to Strategy.

As stated in the ICCP: The Admins assured the council that 18 months of runway would suffice to deliver. The current value of the Safety pool increases the operational runway to 19~ months and can go up to 21 months if enough funds are raised before the Open Beta. Since the runway is covered, I fully agree that Revenue distribution should come back in full force when the Open beta comes out. After all, that is what the entire tokenomics of Illuvium are based on.

With the wording in the current proposal, however, we may stone wall any future revenue distribution to go to the safety pool after the Open Beta is pushed out.
From my Layman's perspective, sentences such as the following could give enough justification for issues to arise if the revenue of the game is not satisfactory:
"All revenue exceeding the Safety Pool threshold or generated after Open Beta will be directly allocated to Revenue Distribution."
"It is worth noting that once the threshold is filled or Illuvium enters Open Beta, the revenues from the identified channels will be allocated to Revenue Distribution."

It is highly probable that the launch of the game will go right and that Illuvium gets to a point where the safety pool doesn't run out before the game becomes self-sustaining. If that is not the case, and the game does nót become big enough, I don't see how we could justify an increase in revdis to go to the safety pool with wording such as that. For this reason, I would like to see a slight change in wording there, to imply "Turning off the tap and not reducing the bucket size".

I have full confidence that the members in the Strategy Council and IMC will take this into consideration and revise the ICCP if deemed appropriate.

[hoary widget]

** [CSC] ICCP-9 Safety Pool Threshold **

I approve this proposal!

Considering the information provided by the Team, it was confirmed to the DAO that an 18-month runway would be sufficient for project delivery. Taking into account the estimated release of Open Beta, this adjustment ensures sufficient financial resources to support Illuvium Lab’s operations until its revenue streams become profitable (based on a successful game launch).

Lowering the Safety Pool’s threshold to $5 Million aligns with the raised capital of $10 Million (Framework), establishing an adequate financial buffer that aligns with the DAO's risk appetite and preserves the safety pool's primary objective (…needed just in case!).

I share similar thoughts of my fellow Council members regarding Community sentiment (maintaining a larger safety pool/buffer) and have full trust in both the SSC and IMC to utilize all resources available to make relevant changes to the ICCP (if required) and informed decisions when it comes time to Approve/Reject.

[green magnet]

**[IMC] ICCP-9 Safety Pool Threshold **

I approve this proposal as it is written.

Having established appropriate runway with the capital raise with Framework completed, the need to retain revenue in the safety pool is greatly diminished. The reduction to $5M allows us to much more quickly move to re-establish revdis, which is an essential part of our tokenomics structure. The mission isn't complete but we're very much on the right course with the project finances now to get us well past open beta launch to allow the project to find the right traction.

Note that I missed the vote on this ICCP vote at the SSC level but support it and have approved at the IMC.

[frosty forge]

[SSC] ICCP-9 Safety Pool Threshold

I approved this proposal as the main proponent of this proposal.

I wrote this ICCP a day or two after the announcement that we have completed the capital raise. It was important to get clarity from the council how the capital raised impacted the safety pool. Based of the comments in https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1119852427127029821, it was warranted to clarify the subject. In addition, there was a need to add the revenue streams to continue filling up the safety pool since Illuvium: Beyond Set 1 Wave 1 has recently concluded as well.

The public release of the ICCP was delayed as the Strategy council took the necessary time to deliberate on the advantages of reducing the threshold and align with the Team's objectives. While some may express concern that 5m is too low, the Team has assured that it is more than adequate. Which is why the SSC has decided to keep its original proposal as it stands. Rest assured that the whole council will be monitoring and continuously revisiting the financial situation of the DAO as we eat into our runway and introduce additional ICCPs if need be to address any pressing concerns.

[deep tendon]

[SSC] ICCP-9 Safety Pool Threshold**

I approved this proposal.

The original goal for a safety pool was to reach 15m. With the capital raise of 10m, I advocated for the reduction of the safety pool to 5m. I felt it wasn't fair to the ILV holders if we originally said 15m would be enough and then kept the 15m goal after a raise of 10m.

The team and council felt comfortable with the current runway showing confidence that open beta will be released on time.

[midnight condor]

[SSC] ICCP-9 Safety Pool Threshold

Approved.

Echoing the statements provided by fellow Strategy Sub Council Members.

This was a unanimous decision from both the Strategy Sub Council and the Illuvium Labs Steerco. 18+ months of runway covers expenses through a 2023 Open Beta Launch + an additional 12 months of Development.

I believe Revenue Distributions, True Ownership of In-Game Items, & the DAO structure are Illuvium's secret sauce. These are the reasons why I was attracted to the project initially and showing the world we have a working POC of our vision is in my view part and parcel with delivering the Open Beta.

[shy hedge]

[SSC] ICCP-9 Safety Pool Threshold

Approved

(was unable to place my vote as I have been away on a work trip without my ledger, at least we are all in agreement.)

I agree with the proposal in it entirety, I was initially on the conservative side on this and would have initially been okay with keeping it at 15 mil and beginning revdis again either when 15mil is filled or when the game launched (whichever comes first) just because it doesnt hurt us to have more in reserve "just in case."

Upon further review with the Team being confident that even without the 5 mil they would still feel comfortable with the 18 months of runway we have available, in which case having just the extra 5 mil available for extra padding seems a sufficient middle ground and I look forward to a return to revdis ASAP

[daring tendon]

ICCP-9 Safety Pool - Lowering of Threshold and Future Revenues

I apologise for the inconvenience but my Trezor is currently experiencing some technical issues preventing me from casting my vote. I will have this fixed today.

I fully support this proposal. Initiating distributions earlier would greatly benefit the DAO and send a positive message to prospective investors seeking to join the ecosystem. The additional capital injection significantly improves our financial position, reducing the likelihood of encountering future capital challenges. Consequently, implementing this measure aligns perfectly with the DAO's best interests

[solar plaza]

[CSC] ICCP-10 Proposal Process Optimization

I approve this proposal, and send it to Strategy.

By assigning a sponsor to each proposal, we ensure that the original intentions stay intact during discussions, preventing deviations and preserving the core goals. This proposal will also help to speed up the proposal's progress through council levels. With clear timelines in place, it should not only keep the proposal moving forward in a timely manner but hold both the council and the author (sponsor) responsible for clear communication and prompt action.

[dry mirage]

[CSC] ICCP-10 Proposal Process Optimization

I approve of this proposal.

This proposal aims to enhance transparency by providing regular updates on the progress of proposals to the rest of the community. It establishes a clear time frame to hold the Council accountable and ensure efficiency in the decision-making process.

[rain aurora]

[CSC] ICCP-10 Proposal Process Optimization

I approve this proposal.

This proposal is exactly what Governance V2 needs - Iteration based on experience. Having experienced Gov V2's proposal processes, some of the problems with Gov V2 were a lack of efficiency, and an inability for specialized sub-councils to make revisions to proposals. This proposal addresses both of these issues. Our minimum time to move an uncontentious proposal through the process is lower than ever, while proposals that require more rigorous evaluation can undergo sub-council review and revision for more time, to ensure we're getting it right.

At the same time, a fundamental premise of DAO governance is maintained - The sponsor of a proposal can ensure their intent is being carried through this process, and has meaningful recourse to ensure this is the case. This means sub-councils can't force a modified proposal through if it is no longer aligned with the sponsor's intent, and protects the integrity of the process.

This proposal will be directed to the Strategy Sub-Council.

[hoary widget]

[CSC] ICCP-10 Proposal Process Optimization

I approve this proposal.

I'm on board with this proposal because it brings many benefits and improved efficiency to our governance system. With Gov V2, we knew there would need to be new procedures and policies set in place to help with the flow of work and this ICCP will be a great addition!

The idea of assigning a “sponsor” to each proposal is important because it will help ensure the original intent remains intact throughout any revisions/edits. This proposal addresses efficiency issues by allowing specialized sub-councils (chosen by CSC) to make revisions to proposals (IF any changes are required). In addition, setting fair & short windows of time for each step in the Proposal Process, will expedite things by making sure the Council(s) and Sponsor stay accountable for communication and ensure timely action.

Lastly, I am all for enhancing transparency with the community by providing regular updates on the progress of proposals and keeping all edits in the original Governance Forum thread.

[livid spear]

[CSC] ICCP-10 Proposal Process Optimization

I **approve ** this proposal, and direct it to Strategy.

Streamlining and defining exactly how the IIP integration process will work is incredibly helpful for us council members, as well as the community members going forward. This ICCP does just that and clarifies it in an easily accessible way for everyone involved.
To me, this particular process detailed in the ICCP is probably the most effective way of directing future proposals! 👍

[solar plaza]

[CSC] ICCP-11 Proposal for Visually Distinct Alpha Stamp for Wave 1 Alpha Illuvitars

I approve this proposal and send it to gaming sub-council.

As a member of the community sub-council, I consider my role to represent the voice of the community. In cases like this proposal, where there has been ample support and minimal opposition, I feel compelled to support it. From a technical standpoint, it offers a straightforward solution by providing a visual distinction for Wave 1 without requiring an excessive amount of development time.

On a personal level, as an individual within the community, I am somewhat indifferent, if not opposed, to this proposal. Illuvitar prices will inevitably fluctuate as the community expands and market dynamics evolve. This proposal sets a precedent for making a special Alpha stamp for each and every wave in which the price changes, which I find unnecessary.

[frosty forge]

[SSC] ICCP-10 Proposal Process Optimization

I approve this proposal.

Early on there was a misunderstanding on how Gov V2 proposals will be going up the chain. This proposal is crucial in a sense that it clarifies both for the council members and the DAO how proposals are being handled. It ensures the preservation of the proposal's original intent by assigning a sponsor who has the authority to veto any significant deviations from the initial objectives. This maintains the integrity of the proposal throughout the decision-making process. The proposal streamlines the proposal flow process by establishing clear timelines for each stage, encouraging collaboration between council levels and the sponsor, and providing a balanced decision-making mechanism within the Illuvinati Main Council. These measures enhance efficiency, accountability, and transparency in the governance structure. Overall, approving this proposal strengthens the decision-making process while maintaining the democratic nature of the DAO.

[shy hedge]

[SSC] ICCP-10 Proposal Process Optimization

I approve this proposal

This proposal clarifies the process by which proposals make their way through our governance system in a clear and codified way that anyone can refer back to and understand simply. This is a good thing and imo this is a great system and governance has never been stronger!

[dry mirage]

[CSC] ICCP-11 Proposal for Visually Distinct Alpha Stamp for Wave 1 Alpha Illuvitars

I approve this proposal and send it to gaming sub-council.

Although I personally am indifferent towards this ICCP, I am more than happy to support it as it aligns with the desires of the majority in the community. Additionally, I would like to express my agreement with Artemis' suggestion to restrict exceptions and minimize adjustments to alpha stamp changes in the future waves.

[deep tendon]

[SSC] ICCP-10 Proposal Process Optimization

I approve this proposal

Ditto what the scrub and vet have said so far.
I specifically like the idea of assigning a sponsor to each proposal to keep things moving in a timely manner.

[green magnet]

[SSC and IMC] ICCP-10 Proposal Process Optimization

I approve this proposal

Supporting and crediting individuals who provide ideas that become proposals is a critical part of community involvement. Thei furthers our goals of decentralized involvement as well as incentivizes further participation

[midnight condor]

[SSC] ICCP-10 Proposal Process Optimization

I approve this proposal.

[rain aurora]

[CSC] ICCP-11 Proposal for Visually Distinct Alpha Stamp for Wave 1 Alpha Illuvitars

I approve this proposal and direct to the Game Sub-Council.

This proposal met no major opposition from the community, and comprises a low-cost means to differentiate Wave 1 of Illuvitars from future waves. I'm not generally in favour of adding complexity to our products, but this does strike me as a fair request from a portion of the community. A large portion of the rationale for this proposal hinges on Wave 2 pricing, and I hope to see a finalized draft for Wave 2 pricing moving through voting prior to final evaluation of the merits of this proposal.

[hoary widget]

[CSC] ICCP-11 Proposal for Visually Distinct Alpha Stamp for Wave 1 Alpha Illuvitars

I approve this proposal! You're up GSC!

Community sentiment was reached with minimal opposition on this proposal. Since it requires minimal dev time, I see no major reason why we shouldn't differentiate Wave 1 (the Alpha's of the Alphas!) from the rest of the remaining waves. In no way should passing this set precedent that each wave should have a unique Alpha Stamp or some form of variation to make them each unique in their own way. Prices will fluctuate, so will market conditions.

[livid spear]

[CSC] ICCP-11 Proposal for Visually Distinct Alpha Stamp for Wave 1 Alpha Illuvitars

I **approve **this proposal and send it to gaming sub-council.

I think that if we go with a lower pricing of Illuvitars, that this would be a valid and easy way to give the Wave 1- Alpha buyers the feeling that they bought something unique. This way the value of the Alpha's has a better chance of being retained. I imagine that the gaming sub council will further delve into the validity of the proposal and the effort that will have to go into it.

[sonic pawn]

[GSC] ICCP-11 Proposal for Visually Distinct Alpha Stamp for Wave 1 Alpha Illuvitars

I fully support this proposal.

This is actually an idea i talked about before it got proposed. With the talks about reducing disks price i believe making the alpha stamp special is a great simple way to wave 1 alphas justice. Nothing could be more natural to me than making it the alpha of the alphas.

This requires very minimal dev work and is a fantastic way to give value to the wave 1 alphas without affecting anything else or giving away things for free.

[supple halo]

[GSC] ICCP-11 Proposal for Visually Distinct Alpha Stamp for Wave 1 Alpha Illuvitars

I fully support this proposal.

Wave 1 alphas goal was to become very iconic similar to 1st-edition TCG cards from early sets.
This brings them one step closer to that, so I think it keeps the intent of the product in mind and helps with making the intent reality.

[sacred thorn]

[GSC] ICCP-11 Proposal for Visually Distinct Alpha Stamp for Wave 1 Alpha Illuvitars

Approved.

[mystic pulsar]

[IMC] ICCP-10 Proposal Process Optimization

I approve this proposal. I believe that evolving our governance process in a way that supports adjustments to ideas as they go through the different councils is important, and allows for greater flexibility in problem solving.

[midnight condor]

[SSC] ICCP-11 Proposal for Visually Distinct Alpha Stamp for Wave 1 Alpha Illuvitars

Approved.

I'm in favor of cementing Alpha Set 1 Wave 1 Illuvitars as grails. Furthermore I believe this adds to the depth and history of Beyond with little to no downside.

[solar plaza]

[CSC] ICCP-12 Illuvitars Wave 2 Sale Parameters

I approve this proposal and send it to the Marketing sub-council.

When I joined the Illuvium community, I was excited about bridging the gap between Web2 and Web3, creating games accessible to both audiences.

While a cheaper model in Wave 2 may result in reduced revenue, an expensive model has the potential to alienate our community and hinder new customer onboarding. First impressions are crucial, as overall sentiment toward web3 games is generally negative. This proposal produces low entry point prices, allowing community members from diverse backgrounds to participate in a meaningful way while preserving the scarcity of higher-tiered Illuvitars allowing the Web3 NFT collectors to hunt down the rarest variations.

[CSC] IIP-34 Ascendant Arena Rule Structure Revision for Equitable Participation

I approve this proposal and send it to the Gaming sub-council.

I am all in favor of prebuilt decks. While they shouldn't be overly powerful, they provide a chance for players to experience PvP from the start. Once players determine that they want to further invest their time and money in the game, they can either venture into the overworld or buy the needed assets off the Illuvidex.

[rain aurora]

[CSC] ICCP-12 Illuvitars Wave 2 Sale Parameters

I approve this proposal, and direct it to the Marketing Sub-Council.

Illuvium: Beyond has amazing potential to resonate with everyone who comes to the ecosystem with the addition of In-Game Unlocks. I firmly believe that all this product needs to succeed and be a major boon for the DAO in the long term is for it to be accessibly priced and result in a positive experience for participants. Granular collection elements incentivize trading and potentially bonding, even for users who are not engaging with leaderboard rewards.

I'm in favour of price points that will be familar to gamers for this reason. As some community members have pointed out, we don't get a second chance at first impressions, so while this price point could be premature, I believe it ensures our messaging about who Illuvium's products are for is consistent across products, and that's critically important as we consider PvP and Open Beta.

[dry mirage]

[CSC] ICCP-12 Illuvitars Wave 2 Sale Parameters

I approve this proposal and send it to the Marketing sub-council.

I firmly believe that this proposal represents a well-balanced compromise, bridging the gap between being a web3 product while also catering to the community's desire for affordability and accessibility to a future web2 audience. At this point, it seems that Illuvium Beyond has found its focused identity, striking a balance where it is inexpensive enough for widespread engagement while still offering rare illuvitars that appeal to the whales in the community.

[CSC] IIP-34 Ascendant Arena Rule Structure Revision for Equitable Participation

I approve this proposal and send it to the Gaming sub-council.

This proposal aims to enhance the usability of illuvials in the Ascendant Arena by eliminating the feature that allows stage 1 illuvials to be used as their higher-staged counterparts. The introduction of free beginner decks greatly facilitates game access, making it possible for players with limited financial resources, younger players, and those from the web2 auto battler community to experience the game without concerns about spending money or navigating blockchain complexities. I firmly believe that this proposal will undoubtedly lead to exponential growth in the player base, far beyond what could have been achieved otherwise.

[rain aurora]

[CSC] IIP-34 Ascendant Arena Rule Structure Revision for Equitable Participation

I approve this proposal, and direct it to the Game Sub-Council.

It's been a longstanding conversation about whether T0's being the only onboarding element would be sufficient, and the reality is that only having access to T0 Illuvials would not properly showcase what Illuvium's products are about. T0 is too limited of a subset of Illuvials to have a meaningful experience with affinities and classes in synergistic compositions.

Pre-built decks are an excellent solution for brand new players, with precedent existing in multiple web2 deck builder games to eliminate barriers to entry and isolate players from the complexity of deck building as they learn the basic systems.

The free rotation is an effective solution to the "try before you buy" problem. I believe that players will incorporate segments of the free rotation into their decks, enjoy the experience, and then consider purchasing some of the Illuvials they enjoyed. This is preferable to requiring players to spend upfront for something untested, and a fast cadence for the rotation should ensure that players can't use the more powerful elements of a single rotation permanently without making a purchase.

Both of these ideas have potential to be dangerous if applied incorrectly. The intent stated is absolutely correct, but it will be important for the council, team and community to be mindful of this intent as these ideas are implemented. Making pre-builts too powerful, or including too many or too powerful of assets into the free rotation has potential to reduce DAO revenue and disincentivize purchases and trading.

Holistically, this is an excellent idea and I expect it to have a positive effect for first time players and players who are first engaging with deck building.

[livid spear]

In all the hectics that accompany packing for a holiday, I forgot to take along my dedicated ledger. This means I wont be able to officially vote for either the following proposals on Snapshot: IICP 12 and ICCP 34. I will naturally still share my views on any proposals that come up during the following week here. I apologise for this mishap.

[CSC] ICCP-12 Illuvitars Wave 2 Sale Paremeters

I approve this proposal and direct it to the Marketing sub-council.

This proposal is a big push to more reasonably price the in-game collectible rewards. The lowered prices will reduce the entry costs, and the increase dropchances for T3 and T4 will make the d1sk opening experience more fun, while also giving the avarage gamer acces to the higher tier assets.

IIP-34 Ascendent Arena Rule Structure Revision for Equitable Participation

I approve this proposal and direct it to the gaming sub-council.

These changes will for a large part lay the foundation of the in-game economy and the experience the players will have in-game. Im glad that these features are decided upon now. It is good to see the gaming sub-council take the initiative on this 👍

[heady eagle]

[GSC] ICCP-11 Proposal for Visually Distinct Alpha Stamp for Wave 1 Alpha Illuvitars

I approved this proposal.

Wave 1 Alpha holders now get some additional value for their early adoption purchases

[sonic pawn]

[GSC] IIP-34 Ascendent Arena Rule Structure Revision for Equitable Participation

As the sponsor of this proposal i fully approve it.

I believe this Ascendant rule restructure is key to reduce the onboarding barrier for our main audience of web2 gamers.

In addition those changes also aim to improve the overall experience of players in the arena and help retain them, ultimately benefiting the illuvium ecosystem as a whole.

[supple halo]

[GSC] IIP-34 Ascendent Arena Rule Structure Revision for Equitable Participation

I approve this proposal.

I believe this change is beneficial for Illuvium`s overall economy and the onboarding of new players to the gamemode that will allow them to sink as much time into as they want.

[signal swallow]

[MSC] ICCP-12 Illuvitars Wave 2 Sale Parameters Approved

Unfortunately given the character limit this will be the abridged version.

So this has been the most difficult proposal I have ever discussed in my time on the council (including last epoch). Firstly I wanted to apologise to everyone as the Marketing Sub-council should take responsibility for that initial proposal going to the community. The discussions were far from concluded and it should never have been shown without better alignment between the individuals of all the councils (especially the IMC).

Although this seems like a simple price/odds change it goes way deeper than that. The discussion was all about what Illuvium Beyond is meant to be. Half of the aisle said that it should be for Web 2 and half of the aisle said that is was for Web 3. Many also suggested that it wasn't as fun as it could be with the high T1 odds (comparing it to Gamestop) and lastly it is currently the only product generating revenue for the DAO and has the potential to start the Revdis flywheel.

We discussed the data with Perry and Aaron extensively and it told us that everything was priced appropriately outside of Standard D1sks feeling too weak in comparison to Megas. But in the long term we needed to decide who we wanted to cater to. Based on some deeper analysis and some of my own rough estimates I concluded that the cosmetic rewards value proposition felt expensive to your everyday gamer and what they are used to. Although dropping the price drastically is still out of the question I am confident this proposal has made a lot of effort to improve the product in more ways than one and be a significantly better value prop for everyone. It will also have a positive impact on encouraging new people to join the ecosystem in the future.

The full story

#1130940550149853184 message
#1130940550149853184 message

[solar bough]

**[MSC] ICCP-12-R Illuvitars Wave 2 Sale Parameters
**
Declined.

In marketing/sales you 2x down on the winners 📈 , and kill the losers with 🔥 .

This proposal does neither.

What I Support: We created the pillars of what makes Illuvium: Beyond a good product: 1) Fun, 2) Accessible, and 3) Collection Game. ICCP-12-R delivers on those by decreasing pricing, and increasing drop rates for desirable NFTs. The generous allocation of marketing D1sks is helpful to preserve runway.

**Why I Declined: ** When you run a successful online sale (Wave 1 was successful), you should not change the parameters of future sales unless market conditions or other relevant data informs that change. I used to do major online sales events for a living, and "If it ain't broke don't F with it" was our winning strategy on high-performing sales. Illuvitars sale was not broke, and this proposal "F's with it", in a major way. This proposal breaks an essential rule of marketing/sales of changing a winner without sales data informing that change. Most of the reasoning stated for changes were based on "I feel like Y is best" "we should do X for the product" and "we'll sell a lot more if we do Z" from people with little/no professional, product, or sales experience.

**Moving Forward: **Marketing/sales related proposals should be fast-tracked to avoid "too many cooks in the council" chatter that wastes energy and results in changes that are based on feelings, not experience and data.

[mystic pulsar]

[MSC] ICCP-12-R Illuvitars Wave 2 Sale Parameters

Approved.

This has been a very difficult balance to strike. While I understand the concerns of the community, I also agree with Andrew that it's typically best not to adjust something that is working. I have been in both camps over the course of the past two months. I believe there is merit to both positions, but ultimately feel that a more accessible price point sets the right expectation going into PvP and Open Beta. It was also a challenge to reach consensus on odds in order to promote fun and intrigue, while not totally destroying the DAO's revenue. This is easier said than done. As most of you are aware, a majority of our revenue from Wave 1 came from a small number of whales, and this cannot be ignored when factoring in what's best for the DAO/revdis. With that in mind, I believe the odds & pricing that has been settled upon strikes the right balance between accessibility, intrigue, and revenue generation.

In the short term, I do believe this will be a hit to revenue, but in the long term I believe this price point/customer experience will lay the best foundation for scalability to the masses.

[sacred thorn]

[GSC] IIP-34 Ascendent Arena Rule Structure Revision for Equitable Participation

Approved. The team brought this proposal to the GSC after our analysis showed the need for change in our original plans. GSC then amended our plans to include the idea of a free deck in addition. A change I believe strengthens the proposal significantly. A strong case for the value added by our councils.

[green magnet]

[IMC] IIP-34 Ascendent Arena Rule Structure Revision for Equitable Participation

I approve this proposal.

The usage of free, rotating decks allows a simple solution to onboard players as well as give them an opportunity to regularly try new builds. Trying before you purchase or grind for a character is a time-tested and proven approach for Web2 gaming studios to allow players to make informed decisions. This is particularly critical given the owned nature of Illuvium assets. I'm very pleased with this type of value-added discussion and ideation coming from the gaming subcouncil as well as the team reaction to the concepts to find a low-resource way to implement.

[mystic pulsar]

[IMC] IIP-34 Ascendent Arena Rule Structure Revision for Equitable Participation

Approved.

I am a strong advocate for game features that lower the barrier to entry for new gamers. I believe that the free, rotating deck will make it easier for new users to get hooked on our game loop and more likely to commit their time and money on more advanced interactions. While I do feel it will take some balancing to get right, I trust the team and Gaming SC to tweak as needed for the most effective result.

[heady eagle]

[GSC] IIP-34 Ascendent Arena Rule Structure Revision for Equitable Participation

I approved this IIP.

I think onboarding players that are Arena centric is key for us as a whole and so anything that can improve the game in this area is good. The prebuilt decks will allow players to try and hopefully get addicted to our game before spending any money and without having to spend their time in the Overworld.

The change to the stages of Illuvials in Ascendant is a big one but this is just what feels more natural as an asset ownership based game. While this alone would increase the costs of decks, the intent from many on the council is still to keep this game affordable to the masses.

[hardy steppe]

[MSC] ICCP-12-R Illuvitars Wave 2 Sale Parameters

Approved

During council meetings, I advocated for more affordable D1sks, making a case for my viewpoint. My main argument centered around the pricing structure. While I found the $7.50 price point with the new rarity changes attractive, I expressed concerns about the $48 price for the mega D1sk. This high price I believe would make buyers hesitant to "gamble" on mega disks to complete their collections of t3-t5s, buyers might forgo D1sk buying and take the safer approach by looking for t3-t5 Illuvitars on the secondary market. I pointed out that a more attractive price point, such as $20-25, would encourage buyers to buy Mega D1sk and thus contribute more to the DAO.( 100% of D1sk sales goes to the DA0, only 2% of Secondary Sales goes to the DAO)

In the end, we reached a compromise with the $6/$36 pricing, which satisfied both sides of the lengthy debate. While some argued for keeping the pricing unchanged after a successful Wave 1 sale, my perspective was to implement pricing changes only once and avoid further adjustments. I still firmly believe that a price range of $4-5/$20-25 would be ideal for Illuvium Beyond, but understanding differing opinions, we reached a middle ground that addressed everyone's concerns.

[hoary widget]

*** Apologies for my delay in having my rational posted, as I thought I had already had *** (Better late than never )

** [CSC] IIP-34 Ascendant Arena Rule Structure Revision for Equitable Participation**

I approved this proposal and sent it to the __Gaming sub-counci__l.

The introduction of prebuilt decks and the free rotating deck system are key elements in reducing the onboarding barrier for new players (especially web2 players).

Prebuilt decks offer a simple entry point for players to experience PvP. The free, rotating system is a great solution to allow players to try different Illuvials before committing to purchases off the secondary market (or purchasing fuel/shards or grinding the overworld to capture a specific one they want to test out).

All in all, I believe this will Improve the overall gaming experience in the Ascendant Arena.

=============================================

** [CSC] ICCP-12 Illuvitars Wave 2 Sale Parameters **

I approved this proposal and sent it to the Marketing sub-council (Their hard work on this proposal was admirable!)

This proposal had received a lot of feedback (both positive and negative) throughout the process of finalizing it – it was exciting to see so many from the Community interested in participating!

Catering to both web3 and web2 audiences is important in providing more accessibility for wider adoption of Illuvium: Beyond. An affordable entry point is a positive step in the right direction - lower pricing and increased odds (tier weight) will boost the “fun” of opening d1sks! The newly revised proposal is a perfect middle ground and will provide key data sets after this wave has concluded.

In addition, the 24-hour Alpha Sale featuring unlimited supply will empower the community to determine the quantity of Alphas in existence for wave 2. The primary advantage of this approach lies in its potential to facilitate future growth, eliminating the need to reevaluate the Alpha Supply for each subsequent waves.

[sharp seal]

[MSC] ICCP-12-R Illuvitars Wave 2 Sale Parameters

Approved

This was a long drawn out process to come to this conclusion. A lot of voices were heard and a lot of meetings. Although in my eyes it wasn’t the outcome I was truely hoping for I’m glad we can move forward and put our energy elsewhere to really push Illuvium forward.

I look forward to really putting marketing efforts into the sale,PvP and beta.

[green magnet]

[IMC] ICCP-12-R Illuvitars Wave 2 Sale Parameters

I approve this proposal.

Most of the challenge of this proposal stems from the fact that Illuvitars are a product with cross-customer appeal. Gamers, collectors, NFT speculators, Illuvium fans, all have different reasons for owning them. Product positioning is much more complicated especially before the main games launch and most of our challenges stem from varied ideas to what the product should be. I was personally in favor of pricing the products to appeal to average gamers AND Web3 collectors/speculators as I believe Illuvitars turn customers into fans and they will have long term interest and value as our IP and brand grows. I believe we can have the best of both worlds at these price points.

I would have personally not increased the T4 and T5 drop rates as much as we have as I believe those should be uber rare (Illuvitars as well as backgrounds and accessories). I would encourage the community to remain open to tweaks in drop rates and even D1sk structure changes as we move forward.

Lastly, this process was messy. It’s the first real cross-functional IIP/ICCP that touches on all subcouncils and we all got to witness the challenges of decentralized governance. We also witnessed the power of decentralized governance in what I believe is a better outcome than we would have had with any single council making a unilateral decision. Time will tell if that is correct but please continue to give us feedback on the process.

[hoary widget]

[CSC] IIP-35 - Peer & Self Evaluation for Council Members

I approve this proposal and sending it to the Strategy Sub-Council!

Implementing peer evaluation and self-evaluation will enhance transparency and accountability among council members. This will enable us to assess each member's performance and contributions, ensuring alignment with the DAO’s values and objectives.

By providing structured assessments, we can identify strengths and areas for improvement, while maintaining a high standard of governance. In regards to the self-evaluation, this is crucial for understanding performance relative to peers and by keeping the submissions anonymous will encourage honest feedback.

The evaluation occurring at 2.5 months, will allow meaningful reviews and encourage personal growth through constructive feedback (we can always improve in some manner). Transparency is vital, and by publishing final evaluation scores (after the second evaluation towards the end of the epoch), it will keep the community informed when it comes time to vote for future epoch elections.

[solar plaza]

[CSC] IIP-35 - Peer & Self Evaluation for Council Members

I approve this proposal and send it to the Strategy Sub-Council.

By putting in place a well-organized evaluation process, we will create a culture of responsibility and dedication. Regular evaluations allow council members to get helpful feedback from their peers, leading to personal growth and continuous improvement in governance practices. Publishing council members' scores not only holds them accountable but also helps voters make informed decisions in the next election. This proposal shows our commitment to effective governance, aligning council members with our organization's values and goals, and improving decision-making processes.

[livid spear]

[CSC] IIP-35 - Peer & Self Evaluation for Council Members

I approve this proposal and send it to the Strategy Sub-Council.

Im always curious to know what ive been doing right or wrong, so this proposal will sate my curiosity of what the other council members think of my productivity.

In the meantime, this proposal allows the council to be transparent in an objective manner about the other members of their subcouncil. We wont see unnecessary mud slinging or other unprofessional acts that may affect the image of the Illuvinati governance.

The timing of the votes is also crucial, as it pushes each council member to do their best until the final days of a three month period for which they are paid. If someone is voted out, their council pay will be withheld. This means that there are no free meals in the system and slacking will not be rewarded.

By all means, I think this proposal is a healthy step forward into becoming a transparent DAO that pushes the council to actively and productively support the project.

[shy hedge]

[SSC] IIP-35 Peer & Self Evaluation for Council Members

imo the main reason Council Members dont feel comfortable telling fellow Council Members that they're stepping out of line or not doing their job properly is that it never seems like an appropriate time to do so in a professional way.

The point of this system to me is to create the opportunity for there to be an appropriate place to give constructive feedback to our fellow council members and to add additional transparency to the Council.

I believe that numerical grading along with reasoning behind each grade would be most useful, and with no anonymity the feedback and grade that they give can be held accountable.

I Vote NO this proposal as I believe that the anonymity within it can lead to malpractice and does not hold Council Members accountable for the way they choose to grade their fellows. I believe this should be changed!

[frosty forge]

[SSC] IIP-35 Peer & Self Evaluation for Council Members

As the proponent of this proposal, I voted to approve.

The main point for the evaluation is to allow for better transparency and accountability of the DAO's council members.

Accountability being referenced here is not the accountability of the person giving the evaluation but the accountability of the person subject of said evaluation. It is imperative to allow a safe space for council members to be able to give honest feedback without fear of reprisal or harassment from the member who might be offended. Allowing anonymity removes any influence and the fact that scores are averaged out lowers the chances that the format is being weaponized. It would need to take a majority of the council to effectively lower the scores of one members and not just from one member.

In the event that a member becomes subject of an IMC review, the proper forum and time to defend oneself is through that process and not by confronting your peers which would ultimately put a strain in the working relationship and affect the sub-council's effectiveness.

That being said, the anonymity is just one aspect of the proposal and should not take away from its original intention which is to make council members accountable and allow the DAO to have an idea of each members performance. If the removal of the veil of anonymity is deemed necessary by the DAO an ICCP can be proposed to do so.

[midnight condor]

[SSC] IIP-35 Peer & Self Evaluation for Council Members

I vote to approve.

I believe that providing honest feedback to friends, peers, colleagues is a kindness allowing that individual to reflect and grow. Throughout my life I've experienced uncomfortable feedback numerous times and have always looked back on those moments as something that was for the betterment of my character.

We are at a critical point in Illuvium's trajectory and it's my belief Team & Council should be held to the highest standards.

I'm fine with anonymity if it means the feedback we receive is direct, well considered and with that individuals best interests in mind.

[tawdry ledge]

[IMC] IIP-35 Peer & Self Evaluation for Council Members

I vote to approve.

I'm endorsing the new proposal for Peer evaluations. It's a solid approach, encouraging us to strive for excellence and keep our focus sharp. However, I can't ignore a potential flaw: the anonymity might be misused to skew perceptions unfairly. Yet, I have faith in our ability to adjust and refine the process if necessary through an ICCP. I view this as a valuable experiment for Illuvium and am eager to embrace this next phase of our journey.

[deep tendon]

[SSC] IIP-35 Peer & Self Evaluation for Council Members

I vote to approve.

I will ditto what Caveman has said here. I do see some potential issues with the anonymity aspect of these reviews. It will make it harder for one to defend a poor rating if it is unknown to the reasoning they received that score. If these concerns do arise in the future I would expect an ICCP to remove anonymity or require an explanation to why a low score was given.

Overall I do believe this is good for the DAO as it will hold council/team members to a high standard.

[rain aurora]

[IMC] IIP-35 Peer and Self Evaluation for Council Members

I approve this proposal.

I understand the concern that anonymous evaluations have potential to create an unhealthy social environment, but that is balanced against the DAO having a clear and fair look into the performance of council members.

In an ideal council, members would be giving and receiving feedback about performance and improving independent of formal evaluations. IIP-35 matters because it provides a backstop against a council not providing or receiving that feedback, and does it in a way that informs ILV holders of the deficencies. This should not be a substitute for good faith conversations about how we can be better during an epoch, but it is necessary because those conversations cannot be mandated.

[green magnet]

[SSC & IMC] IIP-35 Peer and Self Evaluation for Council Members

I approve this proposal.

Many council discussions and activities are opaque to the community. This is a fairly simple step to change that in a way that puts the responsibility on the individuals who are most capable to assess and provide feedback on their fellow council members. There's a good argument to be made for anonymous vs. public feedback. I'm not strongly in favor of either one but would counsel that we can evaluate this approach and if needed make an adjustment to that.

The details of the evaluation have been well thought out and adjusted by council feedback and I believe will serve their purpose. They are detailed enough that community members can weigh the feedback when voting for future council members and not too details as to be overly complex. A well thought-through proposal.

[mystic pulsar]

[IMC] IIP-35 Peer and Self Evaluation for Council Members

I approve this proposal.

I do not have a strong opinion on anonymity vs. public, but am confident that this council will introduce an ICCP to solve for any issues that may arise from the current proposal. I believe IIP-35 is a net positive to holding council members accountable and reinforcing our commitment to transparency where possible.

[hoary widget]

[CSC] IIP-36 Affiliate Marketing for Illuvium Beyond

I approve this proposal and sending it to the Marketing Sub-Council!

This proposal stands out for its strategic use of affiliate marketing to boost Illuvium Beyond's presence in the Web 3 and NFT space. The affiliate link program will incentivize influencers and partners to promote Illuvium products, which should expand our audience.

Although this is might be a temporary solution until a formal referral code system can be implemented, it will meet the needs for the Illuvitar Wave 2 Sale.

One of the main concerns is the potential for malicious links popping up (scams). While I understand the hesitation to allocate dev time for something temporary, having some form of safeguard against potential scams seems vital, as the harm from a malicious attack could outweigh the program's benefits (outreach to a newer wider audience). Illuvium should consider having a public repository of trusted partners & affiliate links to help ensure user trust and security. A simple solution is locating this in discord, on the website, or even a google doc/sheet.

[quick plover]

DMs are scams

Mods and Team members will never DM you.
Never trust advice or links received in DMs.

Beta access, giveaways, and promotions are not given out via DM. Scams are designed to trick you into installing malicious software to gain access to your wallet or to convince you to enter your seed phrase into a website. Never give your private key (12 to 24-word seed phrase) to anyone.

Support is not provided via DMs

Support is handled publicly, or in threads within the Illuvium Discord. People offering support via DM are scammers.

Please follow the instructions pinned in #report-scammers to report bad actors so we can remove them from the server.

[rain aurora]

[CSC] IIP-36 Affiliate Marketing for Illuvium Beyond

I approve this proposal, and direct it to the Marketing Sub-Council

Marketing is not an area of expertise for me, but affiliate programs are extremely common as a method to spread awareness and increase participation in games. Tarren took the time to reach out and discuss these merits directly, including addressing some of my concerns about implementation.

The community clearly sees the merit in this program as well, and I believe this is a positive addition to the toolkit available for marketing our products.

[signal swallow]

[MSC] IIP-36 Affiliate Marketing for Illuvium Beyond

I approve this proposal

Having written the proposal my key thoughts are summarised in the Rationale section, so I will keep it brief here.

Basically the marketing team is very small at the moment and given the game is not released there can be quite a tight budget at this time. Affiliate marketing not only gives Illuvium the opportunity to dominate the Web 3 space, especially with streamers and other influencers but is a cheap, efficient and effective way to increase our marketing reach. Illuvium still maintains its first mover advantage in the AAA Web 3 space, this will give us the opportunity to spread the marketing reach and capitalise on our unique position.

[dry mirage]

[CSC] IIP-36 Affiliate Marketing for Illuvium Beyond

I approve this proposal and sending it to the Marketing Sub-Council!

The IIP under consideration is a remarkable, proven concept that contributed significantly to propelling Fortnite into a widely recognized brand. While acknowledging my role as a content creator might introduce a certain bias, it is essential to emphasize that this proposition possesses a distinct potential to effectively engage influencers in promoting the merch store, illuvitars, and various other IP-related products. Such a collaborative approach stands to yield mutual benefits for all involved parties. Undoubtedly, this idea holds substantial promise and is poised to play a pivotal role in charting the path toward a prosperous future for Illuvium.

[solar plaza]

[CSC] IIP-36 Affiliate Marketing for Illuvium Beyond

I approve this proposal and send it to the Marketing Sub-Council.

Affiliate marketing offers an effective way for Illuvium to expand its reach and drive sales, utilizing a network of partners and content creators to promote not only Illuvium Beyond D1sks but all future products. This approach increases IP visibility, has the potential to tap into multiple communities, and reduces upfront marketing costs.

[solar plaza]

[CSC]
IIP-37 Allow Purchasers and Land Holders To create Buy/Sell Orders For Fuel

I approve this proposal and send it to the Strategy Sub-Council.

Initially, from a personal standpoint, I was in favor of stable fuel prices due to their predictability and accessibility. While I had my own preferences, I acknowledge the merit in both proposals. However, what became unmistakable was the community's preference for one method over the other. I'm eager to witness the progress of this chosen direction and I have complete confidence that regardless of the path taken, the community and council will persistently enhance the journey, aiming for success and profitability for everyone involved.

ICCP-13 Fuel Economy and Land Sale Integration

I approve this proposal and send it to the Strategy Sub-Council.

I think the approach to slowly introducing new land into the ecosystem is a good start, especially with IIP-37 passing community sentiment, as opposed to a single large sale, which has the potential to be a major shock to the system. I feel it goes without saying that this system will need to continue to be adjusted as the Illuvium ecosystem evolves and we get a realistic idea of what kind of player base we will be supporting. But overall, this is a solid building block to hold us up as we make those discoveries and adjust accordingly.

[rain aurora]

[CSC] IIP-37 Allow Purchasers and Land Holders To Create Buy/Sell Orders for Fuel
I approve this proposal and direct it to the Strategy Sub-Council.

For context, I personally would have preferred a fixed price, non-tokenized approach to Fuel, but this decision was made with the proposal prior to the land sale (IIP-20), and we would be remiss to change the parameters now. Land owners deserve to have confidence that the council will stick to the fundamentals under which land was sold.

I do have some concerns about two elements of IIP-37. Firstly, I think it's critically important for rails to exist and be specified. In reviewing this suite of proposals, I've been assured by SSC that a follow-up proposal will specify functionality of rails. Rails are a lynchpin for any free market fuel system if we want to keep our game accessible and create positive player experiences.

Additionally, I have some reservations about the veracity of the statements about secondary pools existing outside of IMX. This doesn't mean there is a better solution available for tokenized Fuel, just that as the DAO and team we should expect and be prepared for the possibility of secondary pools existing on ETH mainnet.

Holistically, this is a well thought out approach to Fuel, and will serve the DAO well.

[CSC] ICCP-13 Fuel Economy and Land Sale Integration
I approve this proposal and direct it to the Strategy Sub-Council.

Periodically selling smaller tranches of land is a reasonable way to ensure we're not creating undue dilution for land owners too quickly. Setting metrics around which these smaller sales occur will be important as we move towards launch. I'd still like for there to be a low threshold (ex. 50 plots or 100 plots) so that there can be some amount of marketing value and consistency in conducting land sales, but we should never need to be selling 20k plots in a single sale again.

[rain aurora]

[CSC] IIP-38 Free Market Fuel with Autonomous Supply Balancing
I approve this proposal and direct it to the Strategy Sub-Council.

This proposal needs revision and data to ensure it is robust enough to handle market fluctuations. Coupled with rails, automatic balancing is a fair and logical means to adjust land fuel output to meet demand, over longer time periods. As it is a reactive balancing system, it needs to be paired with a proactive or preventative system (such as rails), as we can't leave players high and dry with extreme fuel prices for weeks.

As a concept, automatic balancing is a positive addition, and with some iteration I believe it is the fairest way to scale fuel production. Having the balancing mechanisms be public facing is good for transparency, and will allow land owners to engage with the development of their plot to account for those mechanisms.

[livid spear]

I approve all three proposals and direct them to Strategy Sub-council.

[CSC] IIP-37 Allow Purchasers and Land Holders To Create Buy/Sell Orders for Fuel

I was personally in favor of any solution as I could see the benefits in either fixed pricings or (slightly) fluctuating ones. The idea was always to have a staking game for landholders where they can speculate on the pricing of fuel and trade them / convert them to maximize revenue. This proposal allows just that, and will therefore create an interesting aspect to Illuvium Zero. The Fixed fuel pricing would have been a better system to onboard an exponentially growing community, at the cost of a large part of the speculation-gameplay mechanic we now have. Either strategy could see success and I'm glad that the community made the decision on the council's behalf. I look forward to seeing how the Strategy sub-council tweaks this to perfection!

[CSC] ICCP-13 Fuel Economy and Land Sale Integration

This proposal is a fair way of gradually adding lands to the ecosystem. We would probably see a lot of pushback from the community on when a large sale of X thousand lands should be sold, so this allows for the influx of lands to go kindly to the land holders. The exact implementation will have to be done carefully because it is easy to mis-represent analytics. If we have a trailer marketing the game significantly, it could be tempting to inflate the number of lands drastically to make up for the sudden influx of players. With the way Lands are designed, however, the effects of adding lands is delayed by a number of months due to the time required to build up your plot. It will be a rather difficult to get this balanced out correctly.

[CSC] IIP-38 Free Market Fuel with Autonomous Supply Balancing

This proposal is an interesting way of automating the supply of fuel. The price will probably fluctuate less intensely using the data of the previous month to increase the supply of fuel. The issues that aren't solved with this proposal are the rails, as the price can wildly fluctuate within a month (or otherwise agreed upon timeframe), only to be skewed back in the following one. As well as the reactiveness of the fuels system: In the case of a big marketing push, we could see new players paying a premium only to be negatively affected by the upscaling of the fuel supply at a later date.

I support these proposals, but would like to stress that a reasonably tight rails-system is required if the team wants to retain positive sentiment with the new community that will very likely join us once the open beta comes out. 👍

[dry mirage]

I approve all three proposals and direct them to Strategy Sub-council.

[CSC] IIP-37 Allow Purchasers and Land Holders To Create Buy/Sell Orders for Fuel

While I initially leaned towards fixed pricing due to a preference for a "low-risk" fuel solution, I'm not averse to the concept of a more free market approach. The community's aversion to the idea isn't surprising, and it's not a stance I'm unwaveringly committed to, given my belief in the expertise of the Strategy Sub-Council and the broader Illuvium team to make fuel viable for web2 players, irrespective of the approach. I find this proposal in alignment with previous commitments to landholders and anticipate its successful integration, especially when complemented by selected aspects from the forthcoming proposals. I do think it’s incredibly important to emphasize the significance of higher price rails for fuel. While a remedy for excessive price fluctuations is crucial I believe we can find effective solutions.

[CSC] ICCP-13 Fuel Economy and Land Sale Integration

While not my preferred proposal, I acknowledge its potential complexity in terms of managing community backlash and timing of sales. There's potential for adverse impacts on fuel pricing leading to negative effects on the broader Illuvium NFT economy, especially considering the timing in relation to unexpected fluctuations in the player base. Regardless, this proposal could also present an optimal solution, likely residing in some kind of middle ground. In light of this, I've cast a "yes" vote, underpinned by my confidence in the Strategy Sub-Council's competence.

[CSC] IIP-38 Free Market Fuel with Autonomous Supply Balancing

This proposal presents an intriguing approach to manage the volatility of fuel prices. Transitioning the data utilization from a monthly to a more frequent interval, perhaps weekly or even every three days, would enhance its effectiveness in my opinion. My primary concern with a free market for fuel is the risk of price fluctuations adversely affecting new web2 players who may not be well-versed in these dynamics. That being said a well-implemented solutions like this have the potential to significantly mitigate such risks. I'd like to clarify that I did not participate in the vote for this proposal, although I would have voted in favor of it. I'm uncertain why I thought I had already voted on it, but I’m sorry for that.

[shy hedge]

[SSC] IIP-37 Allow Purchasers and Land Holders To create Buy/Sell Orders For Fuel

I approve this proposal as it is a clear improvement over the previous AMM system.

Although I personally proposed and would prefer a non-fluctuating Fuel system, I believe that with the Buy/Sell orders in place and the balancing mechanics and top rail that will be introduced in a proposal that is coming soon in combination with @quasi barn's pricing UI idea we can make fluctuating Fuel both user friendly as well as guarantee accessibility via a well placed upper rail!

[midnight condor]

[SSC] IIP-37 Allow Purchasers and Land Holders To create Buy/Sell Orders For Fuel

I approve this proposal.

An Order Book system is a better technology fit for our requirements while simplifying the implementation & removing the liquidity requirement.

[deep tendon]

[SSC] IIP-37 Allow Purchasers and Land Holders To create Buy/Sell Orders For Fuel

I approve this proposal.

An Order Book system allows land owners to have more control over the price point at which they want to sell their fuel.

[frosty forge]

[SSC] IIP-37 Allow Purchasers and Land Holders To create Buy/Sell Orders For Fuel

I approve this proposal.

The shift from AMM to Order Book provides land owners greater flexibility in selling the fuel they produce and in the same vein affords the players who purchase them the same flexibility. Coupled with some minor tweaks to the conditions, this setup will provide great value to everyone: DAO, land holders, and players.

[rain aurora]

[IMC] IIP-37 Allow Purchasers and Land Holders To create Buy/Sell Orders For Fuel

I recommend the following revision to this proposal.

"Note: While it is not possible for us to ban actors from creating secondary pools, said pools would have to exist outside IMX, with low liquidity, high slippage, and many such layers of friction that we do not believe to be a large-scale problem. This is a starkly different situation than what has occurred with sILV/2."

The above note should be removed.

I don't have an issue with the fundamental structure proposed in IIP-37, but I do think that a very real possibility exists for Fuel LPs to be established on L1 ETH or elsewhere. I do not believe this is a solvable problem with any tokenized system for Fuel, but it is something I think we as a DAO should be aware of. The main risk points I believe exist as a result of this possibility do not have serious potential for harm to the DAO, to players or to land owners.

Pending this revision, I approve this proposal, and believe an order book system with parameters to specify guardrails (as proposed in #1148000637997555842 ) will serve the DAO well, providing agency to land owners and a sufficiently stable experience for players.

[green magnet]

[SSC & IMC] IIP-37 Allow Purchasers and Land Holders To create Buy/Sell Orders For Fuel

I recommend the same revision as Blickter shared above.

This orderbook strategy creates the best foundational structure possible for emergent gameplay (i.e. adding player agency to drive the outcomes of our universe). Additional work is needed to finalize some of the balancing mechanics and address how future land sales are integrated but this is in process in parallel as an ICCP that is with the community and councils now. Once these are confirmed, the final structure should be in place to let the team build.

[shy hedge]

[SSC] IIP-39 Fuel and Land Plot Balancing

I have voted to Approve this proposal.

My reasoning is that this proposal brings forward many tools for the balancing of both Fuel and Land which is a net positive, these tools and their precise implementation will individually have ICCPs eloborating on them further coming soon...

For more of my reasoning I have discussed this proposal in much detail in: https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1148000637997555842

[hoary widget]

[CSC] IIP-39 Fuel and Land Plot Balancing

I approve this proposal and sending it to the Strategy Sub-Council!

This proposal will introduce the new Guardrail (top / maximum price) which will be set in future ICCPs. This is a good step in setting up the fuel-economy in the game to be as stable as possible during game launch - which will be important to new players (especially web2 players coming into web3 for the first time). Fuel balancing has and will continue to be very important and looking forward to more information in future ICCPs around the automated balancing system. Running and fine-tuning this system in parallels to the game launch will be key to perfecting it prior to implementing it.

When it comes to Launching Illuvium Zero Beta, having it out as soon as possible to build up the lands prior to launch will be very important in regards to fuel production levels being monitored, however, not as crucial thanks to the unlimited fuel generation at the top Guardrail. This will make it imperative that the price for the top Guardrail be set to the optimal $ amount at launch. The sooner we can get the Lands to their optimized fuel-producing levels, the more accurate the analysis of the fuel market will be.

I understand the need for the Land Plot sales over time to help with balancing, however, this will make achieving Mega Cities more difficult and many in the community quite liked the large hyped up Dutch-auction land sale of 20k plots. The "minimum of four months" prior to the first micro-sale might not be long enough, however, this is of course why it was worded in such a way - again, this will be considered and decided on in a future ICCP.

[midnight condor]

[SSC] IIP-39 Fuel and Land Plot Balancing

I have voted to Approve this proposal.

My reasoning is that this proposal highlights some of the methods we have in mind for balancing, telegraphing potential changes with the wider community and ensuring players don't feel blindsided by X Y Z implementation closer to or post Open Beta release.

[livid spear]

[CSC] IIP-39 Fuel and Land Plot Balancing

Naturally I approved of this proposal.

Strategy had already created 3 proposals that all had passed, where this is a combination / implementation strategy of the three. The community once more was overwhelmingly positive so I have nothing to add. 👍

To be frank, I thought this voting was somewhat redundant. It was probably good to have the discussion once more, but from my point of view this IIP could have skipped community sentiment and gone straight to IMC (Since its foundation was approved by the community).

[dry mirage]

[CSC] IIP-39 Fuel and Land Plot Balancing

I have voted to Approve this proposal and send it to the Strategy Sub-Council

I believe this represents a slight improvement over the previous three separate proposals, with minor adjustments resulting in a more effective, consolidated proposal. I am eager to see the "No Second Order Sales" policy implemented, as I believe that eliminating secondary market dynamics and prioritizing genuine utility will lead to a much more stable overall fuel price.

[solar plaza]

[CSC] IIP-40 Exclusive Illuvium Zero Battle Board Rewards

I Approve this proposal and send it to the Gaming Sub-Council.

I approve this proposal as a CSC member, and my interpretation of a CSC member is to never be a blocker unless a proposal does not align with the greater community sentiment or has severe flaws. As a community member though, even though the original proposal has gone through revisions, I still disagree with the heart of it - that Land Holders are owed restitution for the game delays. Landowners have already been rewarded with the ability to obtain 15 blueprints pre-open beta. A reward that has saved them play time, and others the need to choose between researching blueprints or generating fuel to sell for Eth once Open Beta does hit. While as a land owner myself I sympathize with the agony and frustration of having gone so long with no return on investment I disagree that Landowners require, or are entitled to, more than they have already been provided.

[hoary widget]

[CSC] IIP-40 Exclusive Illuvium Zero Battle Board Rewards

I approve this proposal and sending it to the Gaming Sub-Council!

Sentiment is extremely low amongst the landholder community and delay after delay has brought it to an all-time low. This proposal will offer an exclusive and unique Battleboard as a form of appreciation to these landholders.

Compared to the previous iteration, this proposal’s reactions were much less divisive in the community. This proposal is an improvement and takes into account the time required by the Team (art & dev) to fulfill the requirements [1 Skin vs. 14 skins].

Setting precedent of asking and receiving rewards might be troublesome in future proposals that might arise if this one is passed – this will need to be managed and a solution determined by Council.

__Recommendations for GSC & IMC to consider: __

• To avoid issues surrounding launch times (ILV-Z Beta & Open-Beta), it should be considered that setting a timeframe of “X weeks” or “Y weeks” after IZ-Beta Launches (regardless of when OB launches) – Since the lands will not reset, we can have the snapshot taken of the lands at a specific date/time.
• If there are major concerns with having an ER20 token as the reward (sellable asset), perhaps considering skins linked (“soul-bound”) to the plots of land themselves might be a viable solution.

[livid spear]

[CSC] IIP-40 Exclusive Illuvium Zero Battle Board Rewards

I Approve this proposal and send it to the Gaming Sub-Council.

I have been cynical of this proposal from the moment I heard of the idea. Not because I don't want landowners to have something nice, but because this type of "reward" or "thank you" does not solve any current issue the community may have with land.

Over the last year, we have seen the hype around land die down a bit. First, players were excited about Fuel, but the community quickly realised that land only would make 5% of fuel and the returns on fuel production may not be as impressive as they had hoped. Then Blueprints became thé thing, but Illuvium Labs now also actively started rewarding skins. The delays on top of these factors, have been a slight blow to the morale.

This will probably change the moment that the Beta comes out. You will make fuel and see actual returns on your plot, which will ease (a lot of) frustrations. Until that time, however, I think a concession towards landholders could have a positive effect on community sentiment.

I'm not a fan of a skin reward for playing the game, because the 15 blueprints already serve that purpose. I would instead like to see a slight tweak to the underlying mechanics of Land. This change may give a small increase in innate value of lands so that landowners won't feel like they are being forgotten.

In the end, the community passed this IIP and showed their concerns around Labs uncontrollably making Skins, so it's in our best interests to create something concrete to satisfy them. Whether that is through a reward or a structure that puts their minds at ease. This is why I think Game subcouncil should look it over, as they have a more in-depth view on inner workings of the games, more so than us community members.

[sonic pawn]

IIP-40 Exclusive Illuvium Zero Battle Board Rewards

I decline this proposal.

Delays over delays in a bear market is a bad combination for community sentiment. Illuvium community is very strong but in those time its harder to keep our heads up, for some more than others.

For land owners, specifically it's a hard time because during this period of time their investment didn't perform as they expected. Assumption or speculation about having exclusive blue prints that may be worth a lot turned out to be another deception as it ended up being 15 non-exclusive blueprints that everyone will acquire. Another common assumption was that land owners exclusivity on skins blue prints meant exclusivity on skins.

As the community recently saw Illuvium Labs offering skins in other another context and getting another additional delay, the glass of water is started to spill out for some.

Being a land owner myself and someone fully involved since the early days i totally understand where this comes from and appreciate how this proposal got adjusted after community feedback after the first iteration.

That being said, i don't see how giving a freebie will realistically help this in any substantial way. I don't think not giving the asked freebie will have a substantial negative impact either and truly believe that once we finally get there and land owners can start to produce fuel for open beta all the delays and resentment will go away.

I think comparing this to Illuvium Beyond is very wrong as those are completely different product. I think the most accurate would be to compare this to a ILV token investment and even comparing it to OW or arena makes more sense than to Beyond.

Not only i cannot see a strong enough reason to approve this but i also fear that this could set precedents in the Illuvium governance of "im not happy, so give me this".

If landowners get this reward by asking, it's very hard to justify not giving this or more to any other group asking afterwards.

[heady eagle]

IIP-40 Exclusive Illuvium Zero Battle Board Rewards

I decline this proposal.

To my standards there has not been a good enough reason given for landowners to be compensated with a free NFT.

The gift of a battleboard NFT to current landowners would not change behavior towards the project or contribute to a new conversion towards different game modes enough to justify it as a marketing tool in my opinion.

This also sets a bad precedent where if a member/members of the community feel they have not earned enough from their investments or have lost value from initial purchase, they request special favors to recoup their losses.

[supple halo]

IIP-40 Exclusive Illuvium Zero Battle Board Rewards

I approve this proposal.

This proposal has seen lots of debate and opinions around it; I want to address this and hope to clear some of the ongoing or recurring arguments.

The relevant counterarguments against this proposal are setting a bad precedent and missing out on revenue from a product that otherwise could be sold.

I believe those are very weak arguments, as every proposal in the past was treated as standalone, and the idea of a slippery slope was disregarded, e.g. with the safety pool. Hence, our precedent is that we should not use a potential slippery slope to reason against a proposal.

On the revenue argument, we have to discuss in hypothetical what would generate more revenue, selling such a cosmetic or using a free one gated behind conditions for marketing reasons.
Selling one has the clear benefit of direct income, but given all the current sentiments and recent Illuvitars sale being worse than the first wave, it doesn´t seem it would generate a substantial amount.
The other side would be:
-showing off Battleboard in matches to an opponent
-hooking people on this sort of cosmetic
-trading fees
-overall increased sentiment->more purchases
-community/shareholders feel heard, and we can avoid disconnects like we have seen with Blizzard over the last decade

It seems very clear that the direct and potential upsides outweigh the small costs and risks and that the possible counterarguments aren´t holding up when faced with opposing arguments.

[tawdry ledge]

IIP-40 Exclusive Illuvium Zero Battle Board Rewards

I decline this proposal.

It's a challenging decision for me, especially as a land holder who aligns closely with the proposal's intentions. The excitement that surrounded the IZ following the land sale is undeniable, and I understand the longing among many to recapture that magic. I also acknowledge the concerns of many in our community who feel the land has been overshadowed by other projects, especially given the expectations set and investments made by landholders.

However, every investor within the Illuvium ecosystem has faced challenges due to delays. While I resonate with the proposal's sentiments, I believe it could potentially limit the ILV team's ability to devise innovative solutions beneficial to both IZ landholders and the broader DAO. A directive approach, encouraging the team to explore diverse solutions, might be more effective. While our community and council's feedback is invaluable, I also believe we need to continue placing trust in the ILV team's expertise, backed by years of experience.

If circumstances permitted, I would have collaborated with @splendor to reshape this proposal, ensuring the ILV team's involvement in creating a solution aligned with community sentiment. However, the Game sub-council is currently not open to revisions.

In closing, my optimism remains undiminished. I am confident that the game's launch will reignite the passion we all share for IZ. As launch day approaches, I believe our landholders will once again feel the thrill of leading the way. Stay with us—the best is yet to come!

[sacred thorn]

IIP-40 Exclusive Illuvium Zero Battle Board Rewards

I decline this proposal.

Giving away "free" stuff seems like a short term bandaid for community sentiment, that I believe will be largely forgotten and unneeded with the eventual success of IZ.

This "free" stuff is also not free, and would pull hundreds of hours of labour (potentially thousands) away from other key areas. Battleboards require significant work from the Environmental department, modelling, tech art and concept teams. Those man-hours would be better spent delivering on the Overworld and IZ.

[solar plaza]

[CSC] ICCP-13 Trading Blackout Enhancements

I approve this proposal and send it to the Strategy Sub-council.

Although enforcing a trading blackout period may present challenges, I support the proposal's underlying principles and the standard it sets for council members going forward. While it may be difficult to identify specific wallet holders, blockchain technology still increases the chances of detecting potential violations.

[CSC] IIP-41 Illuvium PvP Tournament Fund

I approve this proposal and send it to the Marketing Sub-council.

This proposal marks a promising beginning in establishing a competitive Illuvium community. I believe there is significant value in building the player base's foundation ahead of the open beta phase. In past releases, the initial excitement lasted for only 2-4 weeks before tapering off. Although PvP content tends to sustain interest for a longer period, there might still be a decline, especially before the open beta. This proposal, in my opinion, addresses that issue.

[rain aurora]

[CSC] ICCP-13 Trading Blackout Enhancements

I approve this proposal, and direct it to the Strategy Sub-Council.

This proposal lays out clear terms under which a council member is allowed to engage in non-malicious trading activity during a blackout, in addition to accounting for some of the holes in the previous Trading Blackout proposal, such as assets which are already listed when a blackout starts. While this proposal doesn't have a major impact on the Illuvium community, it is a major quality of life improvement for council members who may be under Trading Blackouts frequently but still wish to engage in normal, non-malicious gameplay.

[CSC] IIP-41 Illuvium PvP Tournament Fund

I approve this proposal, and direct it to the Marketing Sub-Council.

The potential benefits of supporting community organized tournaments are massive. There exists potential for exposure to new players, building a more robust competitive scene around Illuvium, and gaining valuable insights on what types of tournament formats will work for Illuvium and which will not. It can also provide additional insight into Illuvium's reception by a variety of different types of gaming communities, informing our future partnerships.

Like any rewards, this allocation of tokens will need to be monitored over time to ensure the DAO is deriving sufficient benefit from the tokens we are emitting.

[livid spear]

[CSC] ICCP-13 Trading Blackout Enhancements

I approve this proposal and send it to the **Strategy Sub-council. **

Councilmembers will be granted some flexibility in their trading habits, but guidelines now dictate when the DAO may step in to address a councilmember's trading behaviour. This allows for clear understanding between the two parties, which was previously lacking.

[CSC] IIP-41 Illuvium PvP Tournament Fund

I approve this proposal and send it to the **Marketing Sub-council. **

This proposal sets robust ground rules for the upcoming tournament rewards structure. It's a great first step towards setting up a valid rewards structure that may be iterate upon in the future, when we have more information on the community's interactions with the tournaments. We may also base changes off of future experiences between the DAO and future partners.

[signal swallow]

(MSC) IIP-41 Illuvium PvP Tournament Fund

I approve this proposal

Given I am the sponsor of this proposal I am not sure what can be said that I haven't already.

Although this proposal took a long time I need to thank everyone for their patience and support, a significant amount of major improvements came during discussions with other subcouncils and during the public discussions with the community.

Ultimately I see great importance in kicking off and fostering a strong competitive community surrounding and within Illuvium that will make it stand out in all of Web 3. Although this is an awesome stepping stone, it is just the start, if we want to one day be recognised on the world stage like many of you hope, there is still a lot of work to do. This proposal effectively pushes that forward whilst at the same time rewarding everyone who stuck around to support us for the past 2 years.

Again, thank you

[hoary widget]

[CSC] ICCP-13 Trading Blackout Enhancements

I approve this proposal and sending it to the **Strategy Sub-council. **!

New guidelines set forth in this ICCP offer council members a bit more leeway when it comes to trading during blackouts, while addressing gaps in the original IIP. At the end of the day, the ultimate goal is having clear guidelines even if enforcing them during blackouts will be challenging.

More of my original rational (IIP-33) still holds true why these additions are a good thing to clarify prior to the economy launching: #📯〕council-chambers message

============================================================================================

[CSC] IIP-41 Illuvium PvP Tournament Fund

I approve this proposal and sending it to the Marketing Sub-Council!

This is a huge step forward towards building a PVP tournament scene through approved communities/partners. It will be important to ensure the reach extends to as many new users and communities as possible to increase player base prior to Open Beta launch.

The effectiveness of this new initiative will need to be reviewed over time to determine the pros/cons, as well as sentiment around the tournaments and the communities/partners hosting them.

[midnight condor]

[SCC]ICCP-13 Trading Blackout Enhancements

I approve this proposal.

The proposed changes further clarify expectations of Team & Council allowing these individuals to navigate investing in the ecosystem with certainty.

[solar plaza]

[CSC] IIP-42 Governance V3

I approve this proposal and send it on to the Strategy Sub-Council.

The proposed changes will help refine the governance structure to a more efficient form while also aligning more closely with the new requirements set forth by VARA. While Gov V2 was an excellent step in determining what does and doesn't work for the Illuvium DAO there were aspects that made the DAO less efficient and effective. I am sure the DAO will continue to evolve and change as the project and it's community continues to grow.

[deep tendon]

[SCC]ICCP-13 Trading Blackout Enhancements

I approve this proposal.

This ICCP improves the previously passed IIP on trading blackouts. This ensures council and team members are able to participate in Illuvium's ecosystem with some normalcy.

[frosty forge]

[SCC] ICCP-13 Trading Blackout Enhancements

This proposal was originally intended to provide an exception to IIP-33 (https://discordapp.com/channels/760344898200666112/1162122023217156096) by allowing council members to purchase NFTs that are subject to the Trading Blackout provided it does not exceed the maximum threshold of $500 USD. However, I must respectfully reject this proposal for the following reasons:

Firstly, I acknowledge the validity of the concerns expressed by certain council members, particularly those within the Gaming Sub-Council (GSC), who stand to be significantly affected by the trading blackout. I am sympathetic to their predicament, recognizing that they are gamers at their core and will be playing the game extensively. Nevertheless, this matter has been rendered moot in light of the major support for the proposed Gov V3, which, among other things, includes the dissolution of sub-councils, including GSC. When passed, the trading blackout would only affect IMC and the ICC (Community Council) to which, practically, only the IMC would be directly affected as gaming decisions will be coursed through them.

Setting aside Gov V3, I believe it is imperative to establish a more comprehensive and fair approach when considering exceptions to the trading blackout policy. Rather than setting a monetary cap of $500, which may inadvertently encourage individuals to exploit this limit by purchasing numerous low-cost NFTs, it would have been more beneficial to set a maximum quantity restriction instead. A quantity-based restriction would be more effective in preventing potential abuses while still allowing council members to purchase NFTs within reasonable bounds. By doing so, we ensure that the trading blackout policy's intent remains effective to mitigate abuse, irrespective of the price point of individual NFTs.

[shy hedge]

[SSC] ICCP-13 Trading Blackout Enhancements

I have approved this proposal as I think it is a sufficient deterrent against any kind of "insider trading" from Council whilst also allowing for normal gameplay to occur.

Blackouts will more often than not just be on ILV token and not on in-game assets as the vast majority of in-game asset balancing will be done by the team and not council anyways.

I believe this proposal is sufficient and doesn't really need to be further refined as this is mainly a deterrent for this kind of behaviour

[rain aurora]

[CSC] IIP-42 Governance V3

I approve this proposal and direct it to the Strategy Sub-Council.

Governance V3 addresses structural inadequacies in Gov V2, reducing the number of individuals voting on a given proposal, while creating space for experts who cannot commit the time to serve on a sub-council, but have expertise to provide to the DAO.

I believe this structure will be an improvement over Gov V2.

[deep tendon]

[SSC] IIP-42 Governance V3

I missed the voting window on this due to miscommunication on my part. I do fully support this and my vote would have been to approve this proposal.

Gov V2 was a great step in the right direction, but it had its flaws. It was clunky and slowed things down.

Gov V3 I believe will be a better system all around. Keeping the decentralization, but getting rid of the bulk. I do have some concerns about getting quality members on the committees to volunteer their time and also the potential of putting more work on the community council of 5 members, but if these becomes an issue an ICCP can be proposed to make changes.

[hoary widget]

[CSC] IIP-42 = Gov V3

I approve this proposal and sending it to the **Strategy Sub-council. **!

This IIP introduces Governance V3, which improves decision-making efficiency, transparency, and alignment with VARA requirements (if we decide to formally proceed & if we get approved). We will remain decentralized, however will reduce from a 3-tiered system down to 2-tiers – this should help with speed of voting on proposals.

By replacing sub-councils with the newly introduced specialized committees – Council members will have access to experts (12 total) in specific fields to help make the best decisions for the future success of the DAO.

The extension to 9-months per epoch will allow more time for onboarding, strategic planning and community engagement – it is hard to believe there is only 1 month remaining this epoch.

I do have some reservations around the amount of work-load the newly named ICC will be taking on as part of this new structure, however I understand the option of more ICC members (7 for example) would make discussions quite difficult.

[shy hedge]

[SSC] IIP-42 Governance V3

I was going to vote against this proposal, however I did not actually manage to get my vote in, but the proposal passed with 3 votes for it and 0 votes against it anywho...

The reason why I would have voted against it is because of the change to 9 months from 6 months.
I do not think this should pass with a change to 9 months as I genuinely believe this to be a negative outcome for the DAO all round, apart from that I have nothing against the rest of the proposal and had that been changed I would have been happy to vote for it.

[hoary widget]

[CSC] IIP-43 = BOGO D1SK Promotion for Illuvium Beyond

I approve this proposal and sending it to the Marketing Sub-Council!

I support this proposal as it furthers the efforts and goals to increase the players entering the Illuvium discord and to enhance engagement & expand Illuvium Beyond player base.

I do believe that there should be a beta code available at the end of the transaction for any new player that makes a purchase with the BOGO offer (similar to the Gamestop sale). This will allow them access to Overworld & Arena prior to PVP launch and help grow the Illuvium Community!

Similar to past sales, monitoring and analyzing the campaign's effectiveness will be key to setting up and executing future partnerships.

[solar plaza]

[CSC] ICCP-14 Illuvitars Wave 2 Extension and Promo Sale

I approve this proposal and send it to the Marketing Sub-Council.

Had the extension been two weeks instead of two months, it's unlikely the community would have been as concerned with the proposal. From both conversations inside and outside the Illuvium discord, the discontent with the proposal - from my understanding - doesn't really stem from its terms. Most of the community had been aware of an upcoming Wave 2 extension for weeks. The main issue was the hasty presentation of the proposal. It was published, put to a vote in less than 24 hours, even before the scheduled Town Hall to discuss the matter with the community. When proposals feel rushed, people panic and search for reasons to oppose them. The Community Values being heard, and this is something the council should take into account with future proposals when possible.

In the end. whether it's a Wave 2 pause or an extension, it's in the best interest of the DAO to seize the opportunity for the intended partner promo and the chance to attract new players through the BOGO promotional sales.

[CSC] IIP-43 BOGO D1SK Promotion for Illuvium Beyond

I approve this proposal and send it on to the Marketing Sub-Council.

In all honesty, this promotion strikes me as an unequivocal yes. It's an excellent means to engage smaller communities that might not possess the specific qualities we seek in our promotional partner D1SKs.

[green magnet]

[SSC & IMC] IIP-42 Governance V3

I approve this proposal.

The enhancements in this proposal to move from Gov V2 to V3 address the main areas needed - efficiency, streamlining of communications, closer integration with the community, and targeting addition of technical experts via the committees, and responsiveness to potential regulatory topics with the IMC structure. Some additional work still needs to be done to ensure adaptation of some good ideas this epoch such as the GIP process. However, from Day 1 it will be an improvement as we continue iterating to build the best structure for the DAO.

[frosty forge]

[SSC] IIP42 Governance V3

I approve this proposal.

Some might perceive this proposal as a deviation from decentralization, but it actually strikes a balance between gov v1 and v2, maintaining decentralization's core. Proposals still go through community sentiment assessment before IMC voting. Gov v3 addresses inefficiencies from gov v2, streamlining decision-making and communication within the DAO and Labs while elevating IMC's responsibilities and qualifications. VARA's requirements have also significantly shaped these changes.

While this is a step in the right direction, we can expect more micro-adjustments in future iterations, whether through incremental process improvements or future gov versions. Decentralized governance will be a fluid type of governance and with impending regulations, we should accept that we would be evolving as time passes.

[signal swallow]

[MSC] ICCP-14 Illuvitars Wave 2 Extension and Promo Sale

I approve this proposal.

This was a tricky one for me since maintaining consistency is important to me, once something has been set, it would take a lot for me to change that, especially 2 weeks before it would have concluded. Alas that is exactly what has happened, like many I remember the long break between Wave 1 and Wave 2 and avoiding that from happening again is crucial for the DAO and the success of Illuvium Beyond as a whole. Also the potential benefit from having wave 2 be active during the upcoming promotional work cannot be understated. With all that in mind this proposal is simply the best of a bad situation and I hope this doesn't set a precedent for things like Beyond Wave 3 and 4.

I'd also like to add that I hope the Council of the next Epoch does not extend Wave 2 again under any circumstance, this should be clear to all that it is a one-off.

[mystic pulsar]

[IMC] IIP-42 Governance V3

I approve this proposal.
I believe the move from GovV2 to GovV3 addresses key improvement areas by revising sub-councils to committees, and making them more attainable for technical experts. This model will also align best with regulatory guidelines and insure that the DAO has not only the best representative governance structure, but also the most impactful involvement from industry experts.

[dry mirage]

[CSC] IIP-42 Governance V3

I approved this proposal and sent it to Strategy

While I would have loved to see Gov V2 tried out for one more epoch, I believe that Gov V3 is an overall better system. It allows for faster and more efficient governance. In my opinion, Gov V2 created scenarios where the proposal process became too convoluted.

[CSC] IIP-43 = BOGO D1SK Promotion for Illuvium Beyond

I approve this proposal and send it to Marketing

I'm not a marketing expert by any means, but this idea seems like a no-brainer, especially with the proposal's specified limits. I believe that a BOGO promotion will play a crucial role in the short-term growth of our ecosystem.

[CSC] ICCP-14 Illuvitars Wave 2 Extension and Promo Sale

I approve this proposal and send it to Marketing

While this situation is unfortunate for Illuvium Beyond players in the short-term, I genuinely believe that not extending the wave in this specific situation would be irresponsible. We have a significant partner that needs to be aligned with the release of PvP, and this is a massive opportunity to attract a large number of people to the ecosystem as a whole (not just arena but IB as well). I think the potential for player base growth from this partnership, if done correctly, far outweighs the short-term downside for Wave 2 Illuvitars.

[livid spear]

I approve both of the following proposals

[CSC] IIP-43 BOGO D1SK Promotion for Illuvium Beyond

This Bogo (buy one get one free) promotion is a neat way to boost activity in the beyond. It will grant Illuvium the ability to partner with other web-3 projects quite freely, without major push backs. Since it's only a single free mega + regular d1sk per player when they buy d1sks, the impact will not be very large; You would be unable to finish a single collection with 4 d1sks after all. Giving players a taste for collecting may, however, get them hooked and push them to buy assets off the (secondary) market, which might spark new life into the game. Overall, i see a lot of positive aspects to this proposal with little to no downsides.

[CSC] ICCP-14 Illuvitars Wave 2 Extension and Promo Sale

My lack of voting for the first two days was purely to give the community more time to mull over and get a sense of the implications of this ICCP as it was seemingly being pushed through within 24 hours.
With the promo partnership being unanimously decided to be a boon to the project, we can take a number of approaches which I will "briefly" give my (unprofessional) view on:

1. We can choose to not take action, end wave 2 and hold wave 3 once the open beta is out. This would likely result in a similar sale as the Gamestop one, where the new players have nowhere to turn to to get further involved in Beyond. I have my doubts on the rate of success in this case.

Then there are multiple remaining options where a wave is active during the promo sale:
2A. releasing wave 3 during the promo sale: This would probably be interesting to the current Beyond playerbase that wants scarce assets, as wave 2 would remain incredibly rare. The DAO on the other hand would be unable to use the open beta release as a way to hype beyond Wave 3. This could make the future turnout be smaller than it would be if it was released after the beta. Additionally, the amount of players that can own Wave 2 and thereby make a complete album would be smaller, which may discourage players from collecting at all.

2B. We could directly pause wave 2 and resume it in anticipation of the promo sale. This was mentioned in the town hall and quickly garnered some criticism in the form of communicating a direct pause to the community, and when it would go back online, alongside backend requirements.

2C. We could also extend wave 2, which is the current proposal. This would allow us to make use of BOGO promotions in the meantime to increase activity, push the volume of the secondary market up, and pulling more people into beyond. Additionally, the promo sale will take place during wave 2 which allows the new members to get involved with all wave 2 assets.

I personally think that this last option is the most beneficial to the DAO, as promotions can be made around wave 2 to boost activity and give the promo-buyers a way to participate as well. Wave 3 can then be released with the hype of the Open Beta, which may still make it significantly more common than wave 1 and 2.

[hoary widget]

[CSC] ICCP-14 Illuvitars Wave 2 Extension and Promo Sale

I approve this proposal and sending it to the Marketing Sub-Council!

I can empathize with the concerns brought up by the existing Illuvium Beyond players (mainly Wave 2 participants), however the pros in favor of benefiting the DAO (partnership) outweigh the cons of affecting the individual Beyond players.

I would urge that this be the last time changes to sales parameters (start and end dates) as this does not instill confidence with customers. We are still in the infancy of Illuvium Beyond and these can be seen as growing pains, but we need to provide accurate information that does not change/update after purchases have already been made based on previously available information.

[signal swallow]

[MSC] IIP-43 BOGO D1SK Promotion for Illuvium Beyond

I approve this proposal

I think I would have rejected this if the team didn't take the time to consider all the potential risks and we didn't have a discord bot created to manage the campaign. With all of that in place it is exciting to know we can create great marketing plays like this one for other things in the future.

It is hard to say what impact an event like this will have but I think its a smart move for a project in our position of relative large size in the broader Web 3 space. I tend to lean towards doing lots of different things and then doubling down on what works, we have already seen this work in the past and have no reason to not go for it again.

[mystic pulsar]

[MSC & IMC] ICCP-14 Illuvitars Wave 2 Extension & Promo Sale

I approve this proposal.

It is clear that this has been a controversial one. I think it is the best of the available options, but all options would result in change. We are committed to establishing (and maintaining) trust (and transparency) with the community. With that said, we are faced with some difficult scheduling challenges and are doing our best to remain flexibility for our partners. In this case, I believe the partner and promotional gain justifies the change. Going forward, however, I would like to see the IMC remain committed to sticking with timelines communicated to the community. We are still in the infancy of the Beyond product and still finding our footing with the release cadence. I trust that the team & IMC will continue to refine these releases.

[sharp seal]

[MSC] ICCP-14 Illuvitars Wave 2 Extension and Promo Sale

I approve this proposal.

Looking at all the options and whats best for the DAO moving forward this is what makes most sense to me. I would love to see this product standardized and my guess is this will happen in time. Not much more to add to what has already been said

[sharp seal]

[MSC] IIP-43 BOGO D1SK Promotion for Illuvium Beyond

I approve this proposal

I'm looking forward to see the data on this one. It's a no brainer to try something like this out. I really want to see more things like this to test because I believe this is the best time to do it so once the game comes out we have a more clear vision what works in the past.

[rain aurora]

[CSC/IMC] IIP-43 BOGO D1SK Promotion for Illuvium Beyond

I approve this proposal.

These BOGO partnerships provide an opportunity for the DAO to cast a wider net for Illuvium: Beyond, particularly in web3 communities that may not be aware of Beyond. This is good for runway and revenue, building connections and generally getting Illuvium's brand in front of as many people as possible. We should continue to monitor and evaluate the efficacy of promotions like this to determine when and where they can best be used in the future.

[CSC/IMC] ICCP-14 Illuvitars Wave 2 Extension and Promo Sale

I approve this proposal.

Going into this proposal, it was acknowledged that it would be contentious. Changing the duration of the Wave 2 sale isn't something that is undertaken lightly, and ideally isn't something that should ever need to happen. Web3 is an evolving space, and we need to retain the ability to be agile and adapt to those changes. Passing up a partnership, or deciding to pass up opportunities to increase revenue and engagement with our products would not be helpful.

I do firmly believe this is the correct choice for the DAO, as the implications of this extension impact the DAO's ability to generate revenue with promo partners, and fit into a big picture plan to increase visibility and engagement with our games. Ultimately, I believe this will serve everyone in the Illuvium ecosystem.

I acknowledge the need and desire to have Illuvium: Beyond adhere to a fixed cadence for new Wave releases, and to have partnerships fall within those predetermined periods. This should absolutely be our goal as we're moving forward.

[green magnet]

**[IMC] IIP-43 BOGO D1SK Promotion for Illuvium Beyond **

I approve this proposal.

The health of our project depends on having active players bringing revenue, attention, and growing the community. The value of assets in our ecosystem also depends on having more gamers. From a financial and community growth standpoint, the BOGO approach appears to be a positive ROI step for the DAO. It’s a good step to activate Web3 natives and onboard them. With our open beta coming quickly, let’s let the marketing campaigns get going over the next months starting here.

[tawdry ledge]

[IMC] IIP-43 BOGO D1SK Promotion for Illuvium Beyond

I approve this proposal.

The BOGO promotion is a method for Illuvium: Beyond to extend its reach within web3 communities. It's expected to drive revenue and enhance brand visibility, further fostering community connections. Our project's sustainability is connected to an active user base and consistent revenue generation. This BOGO initiative, combined with the presence of a discord bot and thorough risk assessment, represents a calculated step for the DAO. Drawing from past experiences, such strategies have the potential to contribute positively to our standing in the broader Web 3 domain, making it a worthwhile consideration.

[IMC] ICCP-14 Illuvitars Wave 2 Extension and Promo Sale

I approve this proposal

The decision to extend the duration of the Wave 2 sale is a significant one and has been carefully considered. The dynamic nature of Web3 suggests the importance of adaptability, especially when opportunities arise to enhance revenue and engagement. This extension aims to align more cohesively with promotional partners, potentially leading to increased visibility and interaction with our games. The long-term vision is to keep a consistent release cadence for new Waves and ensure partnerships are seamlessly integrated. However, given the present circumstances and the potential for broader growth with an impending partnership, this proposal is presented as a measured step for the betterment of the Illuvium ecosystem.

[green magnet]

**[IMC] ICCP-14 Illuvitars Wave 2 Extension and Promo Sale **

I approve this proposal.

This is a situation that is an ‘imperfect best’ option. The opportunity to work with S-Tier partners as is planned here is one that I believe all in the community support. The challenge comes in making a change to the communicated timeline for the Wave.

Having turned over a dozen times different options around Wave 2 and Wave 3 structures, I’m convinced that this is the best option available to us. It’s not a perfect option. In fact, it wasn’t even my initially preferred approach but it gives us the most comprehensive way to support Beyond players, our promo partner and the DAO.

Other options we reviewed at length include pausing the wave (which is incredibly disruptive to players), ending it as originally scheduled (blocking new Beyond players to purchase D1SKs from the DAO), or pushing the Wave 2 promos to Wave 3 (likely forcing an overhaul to the art and breaking the careful timeline linking this activation to pvp activities tied to open beta).

As a secondary point, the components that have very consistent support include the adjustments made to the contents of the Promo D1SKs which were taken from community sentiment around the first Promos. This is a perfect example of a good change identified from community feedback that we should see more of.

[solar plaza]

[CSC] ICCP-15 Vote of No Confidence (VoNC) Changes

I approve this proposal and send it to the Strategy Sub-Council.

By establishing a clear and accessible initiation process and prioritizing merit-based evaluations, the proposal ensures that the VoNC process is objective and free from potential biases. The inclusion of an opportunity for the accused council member to provide a defense and a peer evaluation mechanism adds layers of fairness and thoroughness to the process. Moreover, the defined timeline and impact on council pay contribute to the efficiency and seriousness of the VoNC process, emphasizing the commitment to swift and decisive actions when necessary.

[CSC] IIP-44 Game Development Selection

I approve this proposal and send it to the Gaming Sub-Council.

Introducing a detailed pre-planning process, including thorough genre research and analysis, the IIP ensures that Illuvium Labs makes informed decisions based on market trends, internal capabilities, and potential IP synergies. Additionally, the innovative Illuvium Pitch Jam injects excitement and community engagement into the proposal process, aligning with the DAO's commitment to democratic and inclusive decision-making.

[hoary widget]

[CSC] IIP-44 Game Development Selection

I approve this proposal and sending it to the Gaming Sub-Council!

This IIP introduces a framework for initiating, assessing, and advancing game proposals. The three main components being outlined in the proposal will ensure the best selection for the next game by providing comprehensive market research [Pre Planning Genre Research Documentation], providing the DAO with an overview of advantageous genres [Genre Analysis Document], and establishing a structured framework for the submission/evaluation/selection of new game pitches [Game Pitch Process Flow].

With these in place, the IMC gains the authority to request Pre-Planning Genre Research and Genre Analysis documents as needed for future game considerations. This will also enable the entire DAO (Illuvium Community) to better understand the process of pitching new game ideas (shoutout to one I have read through: IlluviPets) and envision how Illuvium will expand its IP.

=============================================

[CSC] ICCP-15 Vote of No Confidence (VoNC) Changes

I approve this proposal and sending it to the Strategy Sub-Council!

In all honesty, all I can say is samesies as Artemis - She covered the main reasons here: #📯〕council-chambers message

We learnt earlier in the epoch during the VoNC against Vetemor that there were inadequacies in the process that needed refining. These updates will allow the process to be more structured moving forward. This is value added to ensure fairness to the accused, as well as ensuring proper information being shared with the community for them to vote (in discord and then with vILZ if sentiment is reached).

[tawdry ledge]

ICCP-13-R Trading Blackout Enhancements

I approve this proposal

It addresses a fundamental issue of fairness within the Illuvium ecosystem. As a council member, possessing insider information provides an inherent advantage that should not be exploited. This proposal effectively balances the need to prevent market manipulation with the ability for council members to participate actively in the game. By extending the blackout period and setting clear transaction limits, it ensures council members do not use their privileged position for unfair market gains, thereby maintaining integrity and trust within the community

[hoary widget]

[CSC] ICCP-16 Adjustment to Committee Structure

I approve this proposal and sending it to the Strategy Sub-Council!

Having additional Advisors is a net positives (more brains to pick!). Keeping it at a maximum of 5 per committee matches the previous 5 per Sub-Council, which allowed for open dialogue without having too many cooks in the kitchen.

[green magnet]

[SSC & IMC] ICCP-15 Vote of No Confidence (VoNC) Changes

I approve this proposal.

This adds a few key elements to the VONC process in terms of timing and clarifies some operational points to ensure it is fit for purpose. The impact council pay has been appropriately reviewed by our risk/legal team and this now gives the DAO a more clear pathway if a VONC is needed for a sitting council member.

[tawdry ledge]

[GSC & IMC] IIP-44 Game Development Selection

I approve this proposal

Having been an active contributor of ideas and game features since my involvement in PB1, I always wished it was more clear how the DAO would take on new game pitches. This proposal is the culmination of extensive ideation, aimed at harnessing the highest quality of brainshare across our community. While I acknowledge that the proposal might require further adjustments, I firmly believe that it marks a significant milestone towards transforming our DAO into a leading game development studio, enriched by the diverse and creative ideas from our members

I can't wait for our first Illuvium Pitch Jam and to able to see everyone's ideas!

[midnight condor]

[SSC] ICCP-15 Vote of No Confidence (VoNC) Changes

I approve this proposal.

As far as I'm concerned this ICCP is an improvement in all respects, and addresses previous gaps in the VoNC process.

ICCP-16 Adjustment to Committee Structure

I approve this proposal.

Steerco & IMC regularly speak to leaders in our industry.

Increasing to a maximum of 5 seats per committee allows the DAO to formally recognize these individuals as advisors to the project.

[frosty forge]

[SSC] ICCP - 15 Vote of No Confidence (VoNC) Changes

Being the sponsor of this proposal, I approve.

The changes in this proposal addresses multiple issues that came to light after the first VoNC was initiated. With the proposed changes, it is more equitable on the part of the Accused and provides clear step-by-step process and defined timelines to be followed by all parties. The impact of a VoNC to the remuneration of a council member is also a welcomed addition as this shows accountability.

[SSC} ICCP - 16 Adjustment to Committee Structure

I approve this proposal

It became readily apparent during the IMC-Elect's deliberations for the committee members that it would be a huge disservice to the DAO to arbitrarily restrict our committee members to three when there are highly qualified individuals who are willing to commit the time to lend their expertise and knowledge. Increasing the maximum to 5 not only leverages the pool of talent but also ensures that there wont be too many chefs in the kitchen.

Furthermore, the inclusion of the provision enabling the IMC to remove or replace committee members beyond the designated appointment period is crucial. This measure ensures that our DAO consistently benefits from the involvement of exceptionally skilled individuals willing to volunteer their time and expertise.

[deep tendon]

[SSC] ICCP - 15 Vote of No Confidence (VoNC) Changes

I approve this proposal.

I do have a small concern about the not paying a council member for their time in the case where the member was giving their best effort, but simply could not live up to the expectations of the community. However I see this as being a very rare occurrence.
Otherwise, I think this is a great proposal that clears up the process with a defined timeline.

[SSC} ICCP - 16 Adjustment to Committee Structure

I approve this proposal

In a meeting with Kieran before the Gov v3 proposal went live I suggested this. I can don't think a strict number of committee members is needed. In the case where only 3 fit the fill on a certain committee it can be 3, but another committee may have 4 or 5 very qualified individuals and it makes little sense to only take advice from 3 when advice can come from 5.

[livid spear]

[CSC] IIP-44 Game Development Selection

I approved this proposal

This first iteration of the game recommendation process lays the foundation for future Game Ideation Proposals. A number of ideas have been floating around, and by giving these guidelines, the community can finally take on the challenge of ideating future games for the Illuvium DAO.
More so directed towards the community:
It would be beneficial for Illuvium to have a community member follow these steps in the near future and ideate a game, so that the guidelines can be tweaked here and there to streamline the process. It'll be important to have a number of concrete game ideas lying around to further explore when the DAO is ready to expand into different game genres. Maybe your idea won't be acted upon, but we would be able to iterate on the process. We all know that it's hard to get things right the first time, and it's better to iron out the kinks sooner rather than later!

[CSC] ICCP-15 Vote of No Confidence (VoNC) Changes

I approved this proposal

We saw how the VoNC process went with Vetemor a while back and it wasn't pretty in any regard. The VoNC process clearly needed adjusting, and this proposal outlines a proper revised version of how things should happen. This can only be seen as a positive change to the Illuvium Governance structure.

[CSC] ICCP-16 Adjustment to Committee Structure

I approved this proposal

Committee members are giving advice for free, and it can easily happen that some members lose enthusiasm or have difficulties in their life and feel the need to step away from their position. This proposal allows the DAO to choose new committee members, increases the capacity and thereby allows for a consistent influx of advice from specialists.

[rain aurora]

[CSC + IMC] ICCP-16 Adjustment To Committee Structure

I approve this proposal.

There's not much that needs to be said about ICCP-16. While it could be overwhelming to have an excessive number of committee members, limiting the DAO to consulting 3 members as opposed to 5 doesn't make sense. With the calibre of the committee nominees we were reviewing, it's strictly an improvement to allow more members per committee.

[CSC + IMC] ICCP-15 VONC Changes

I approve this proposal.

Having ideated much of the original structure for VONC, I'm extremely happy with these changes. This proposal provides some much needed structure to the process. In particular, making space for the subject of a VONC to defend themselves in a formal way is a much needed improvement. Additionally, VONC still fulfills its' core role - It provides recourse for token holders to remove a council member. This is more important than ever with epochs being lengthened to 9 months under Gov V3. As council, we serve the DAO, and the VONC process ensures council remains mindful of that fundamental premise.

[supple halo]

[GSC] IIP-44 Game Development Selection

I approve this proposal

Starting to think about an essential process that we will need in the future, while we have the opportunity, seems valuable. Having the first iteration of this process in place makes it more accessible for further improvement and iteration once needed.

[green magnet]

[IMC] IIP-44 Game Development Selection

I approve this proposal.

Caveman and the supporting team members drafting this have spent substantial time identifying the key elements for the DAO, Labs, and councils to consider for future game decisions. I stated at the start of the epoch that beginning to lay the groundwork for these decisions that will need to be made in mid/late 2024 was essential while we had capacity to do so unencumbered by open beta topics to be addressed. This was a good use of our time to prep a baseline.

In particular, the chance for community members and third party studios to have a more transparent process (through the Pitch Jam concept) to submit game proposals is a win for transparency and community involvement.

[sacred thorn]

[GSC] IIP-44 Game Development Selection

With 4 votes in favour my vote is largely ceremonial, but I approve this proposal. This is a new process and may need further revision as what we're doing with the DAO is completely unheard of. But I'm excited to be part of a project that is pushing the boundaries on what a game studio and games can be.

[rain aurora]

[IMC] IIP-45 Landowner Revenue Share

I've voted "Revisions Needed" on this proposal.

2 main points need to be clarified for this to be a proposal I'd be comfortable passing.

1. Not retroactive - Solving for any kind of retroactive payment to landowners would be a massive headache and a waste of time that should be spent pushing to get our products to market.

2. Specifics of implementation - While Labs is best equipped to determine technical details of implementation, that doesn't mean those don't need to be included here.

The method of payment (airdrop or claim), the location of payment (L1 or L2), and the allocation of payment all matter a lot. For example, are distributions to landowners based on Fuel production over the past 30 days? Are they based on land Tier? If these are not included, there won't be a good guideline for how landowners get paid, and it will cause problems in the future. Different individuals will fill in the gaps with their preferences, and it's our job to ensure proposals have these definitions laid out clearly.

For what it's worth, my initial preference was that anything regarded as a game simply use Fuel for an in-game payment. That's explicitly what's is outlined in the land sale proposal. Land owners have always been intended to realize their 5% of in-game revenue through Fuel sales, as this creates player agency to both choose how to develop their land plot, and for how they interact with the Fuel market.

So why do I think this proposal has value, if this problem could be solved by making Fuel mandatory for all in-game sales?

This proposal, which essentially defines that Labs needs to develop a distribution system for landowners, allows the DAO to conduct in-game sales in currencies that are not Fuel. This should not be a staple for the DAO's products, but it has a lot of value when we consider partner promotions or other circumstances in which using ETH or stables might be desirable.

[signal swallow]

(I couldn't post this a few days ago when I approved, it should be assumed this was posted then)

[ICC] IIP-45 Landowner Revenue Share

I initially started on a downvote to this proposal because it seemed too tied down and restrictive, especially considering its clear that not everyone believes Illuvium Beyond is or should ever be, a game in its own right within the Illuvium ecosystem. Personal feelings aside it is clear that the community has rallied behind this proposal and a majority of them view Illuvium Beyond as a game, but more importantly strives to maintain the integrity of the promise given to landholders.

Why I think this proposal is a no-brainer is it operates within its own vacuum. It leaves the team to decide on their own method of distribution but more importantly it clearly defines what is owed to landholders even outside the realm of FUEL purchases. There is nothing to say a proposal cannot be created to define Illuvium Beyond as a 'non-game' product or to define any other future products created by Illuvium as 'games'. This both solidifies a clear understanding of the process and leaves the power of product definition to the community (as it should).

[deep tendon]

[ICC] IIP-45 Landowner Revenue Share

I voted to pass this proposal.

I am the creator and sponsor. I had always believed land owners were promised 5% of all in-game revenue. During the initial land sale I believe the plan was the price all in-game purchases in fuel, but delays to fuel production and the introduction of a new game in Beyond left us in a gray area. After speaking to many community members I quickly learned I was not the only person who thought this way so I decided to submit a governance idea that lead to the drafting of this proposal.

I look forward to seeing how the IMC will vote on this.

[mystic pulsar]

[ICC] IIP-45 Landowner Revenue Share

I voted to pass this proposal.

I have always been under the impression that land owners were entitled to 5% of all in-game revenue, not just fuel sales, and that Beyond has been positioned as a game of its own. While I personally believe that this is reasonable, what is more important is what the community believes is reasonable, and I believe the community has been clear. It may be warranted to revisit what defines a "game" within in our ecosystem, but I see that as a separate issue to this one.

With that said, I did have some interesting conversations in gen chat last night which opened my eyes to some of the arguments from the other side of the aisle. I am still confident that my vote here represents the broader position of the DAO, but I look forward to seeing how the IMC votes on this, and would urge them to take into consideration some of the aforementioned pushback when voting.

[frosty forge]

[IMC] IIP-45 Landowner Revenue Share

I voted Revisions Needed

While the premise of this proposal is correct, it is, however, incomplete. IIP-20, specifically states that two conditions for land owner’s share in revenue distribution are as follows: (1) Opportunity to earn approximately 5% of the total revenue generated from in-game purchases in Illuvium; and (2) achieve this by swapping fuels they generate in-game (Zero) for ETH.

Based on this, my position is that the issue this proposal needs to solve boils down to two things:

(1) What system can we have in place that allows landowners get their 5% share from in-game revenue on purchases that are not made in FUEL; and

(2) What interim measures can we implement while a system is not in place yet.

First Issue: I have discussed this proposal with Aaron recently, and the barebones solution that the labs needs to create would look something like this:

User purchases an in-game transaction using ETH or USDC (sILV2 is not considered) > system takes that ETH or USDC and purchases FUEL at market rate on the Fuel Exchange > Landowners get their 5% share > FUEL that was bought then gets burned

This crude solution can be used for every ecosystem we have in Illuvium that is considered in-game transactions that are purchasable in a currency other than FUEL. This then begs the question as to timing. Do we need to create this system now? No. I would assume everyone is in agreement that road to Open Beta is priority 0 and anything that would detract the team and add delay should be worked on after Open Beta.

This then brings us to the second issue:

Development side, there shouldnt be anything to do since the aim is to deploy Open Beta and only then should any development be done. Considering this, the 5% landowner share should be earmarked by finance and in the case of any Revenue Distribution. This amount should be held and not distributed until a system for converting ETH/USDC to FUEL is established, ensuring compliance with IIP-20 and securing landowners' interests.

I believe that while this is a crude solution, this gives assurance to land owners that the 5% share is set aside at the same time, the conditions of IIP-20 is being upheld where they receive their share through fuel sales.

Considering this, the revisions I would like to see on this proposal will be as follows:

1. There must be a clear definition of what constitutes "In-game purchases." We need to ensure that FUEL isn't indiscriminately used for transactions outside its intended scope, like merchandise sales. Might be good to get insights from the team on this.

2. General instructions for Labs to develop a system that utilizes ETH-FUEL exchange system for in-game purchases in a currency other than FUEL. This is crucial for ensuring that landowners receive their rightful 5% share; and

3. Introduce an interim solution where the in-game purchases of any other currency other than FUEL is earmarked and will be held in treasury until such time that a system is in place to convert it to FUEL. Finance would be best to consult with as this should be a simple accounting task.

By implementing these revisions, we can avoid introducing a system that conflicts with the principles of IIP-20. Additionally, it provides clarity on the scope of "in-game transactions/purchases," ensuring that landholders' shares are securely held in trust until an appropriate system is developed.

Edited for Character limit issue

[covert horizon]

[ICC] IIP-45 Landowner Revenue Share

I voted to pass this proposal to the IMC.

Community sentiment:
For

• Upvoted 79:25 in favor.
• Illuvium Beyond is a game.
• Beyond Leaderboard offers in-game ILV token reward.
• D1sk should be sold in Fuel and sILV2.

Against

• Illuvium Beyond is not a game.
• Landowners were promised revenue from selling Fuel (IIP-20) and Beyond does not use Fuel.
• The proposal is taking away revdis from token stakers.
• The amount to be distributed is too small.

ILV Labs:

• Kieran stated that Beyond is a game and landholders should receive their share of Illuvitars.
• Johnny stated that fuel is not necessary for landholders' revenue share, although marketing calling something a "game" does not make it a game per se.
• Discussed with Nick regarding the distribution mechanism in ICC meeting.

[eager carbon]

[ICC] IIP-45 Landowner Revenue Share

I voted to pass this proposal.

In the beginning of this discussion, I was not 100% sure if I would personally see Illuvium Beyond as a game. But that comes from a Web2 Gamer perspective. When I looked closer at the people "playing" it, I realized for them it's a game, and who am I to discredit them?

We certainly have been treating it in a way that aligns with our other games. Using the ILV in-game rewards for the leaderboard, battling in the Beyond, D1sk battles on Illuvium's streams and events, etc.

But the IP is not specifically about whether this is a game or not; it's about making true on the original promise that 5% of all in-game revenue should be credited to landowners and that using no fuel doesn't disqualify a game from counting towards in-game revenue.

From a Community Council standpoint, it makes sense to me to approve this, given the promises to the community and the strong community sentiment for it.

[supple halo]

[IMC] IIP-45 Landowner Revenue Share

As a council member, I concur with "Revisions Needed" for the proposal, aligning with the perspectives of Scrubadubdad and Blickter, while emphasizing additional considerations for refinement.

Clarity and Consultation with Illuvium Labs: The proposal must be refined for specificity, particularly defining "in-game purchases." Input from Illuvium Labs is vital to assess the proposal's impact on future products and align it with the game's economic model.

Resource Allocation and Open Beta Focus: Implementing this proposal should not detract from the crucial delivery of the Open Beta. A clear strategy is needed to ensure that resource allocation for this proposal does not hinder the Open Beta's development and release.

Structured Payout System: Details regarding the payout mechanism – including timing, method, and conditions – are essential for transparency and efficiency. This clarity will manage expectations and streamline the administrative process.

Adaptability for Future Changes: The proposal should be flexible to accommodate future developments within the Illuvium ecosystem, ensuring fairness and equity for landowners as the platform evolves.

In essence, while supporting the principle of staying true to the 5% returns of in-game revenue for landowners, it's critical that the proposal is detailed, consultative, non-disruptive to the Open Beta, and adaptable for future Illuvium ecosystem changes.

[signal swallow]

[ICC] - IIP-46 Illuvium Beyond Reward Structure

I approve this proposal and send it to the IMC

Although I don't love just how broad the proposal is, the discussion surrounding this topic was very healthy for the DAO. I can respect that this proposal properly outlines all of the potential issues facing a split in the leaderboards as was pointed out during that discourse.

This clearly defines all the avenues and gives the team maximum agency while distilling any potential problems the community foresees in the execution of split Illuvium Beyond leaderboards. For that reason I feel it voices the preference of the community very well while achieving some fantastic solutions to welcome newcomers into Illuvium Beyond

[covert horizon]

[ICC] - IIP-46 Illuvium Beyond Reward Structure

I voted to pass this proposal to the IMC.

Community sentiment:
For

• Upvoted 36:4 in favor.
• Wave Leaderboard will be more accessible to newcomers
• Set Leaderboard will keep incentivizing the whales

Against

• Should be an All-time leaderboard instead of a Set Leaderboard
• With the launch of a New Set, the Previous Set bonded-illuvitars may lose their value
• Choosing only one leaderboard may lead to wallet switching
• Should increase rewards for the existing leaderboard instead of creating another leaderboard

Personal notes:

• What is the mechanism for selecting the leaderboard?
  Will the wallets be locked after selecting? For how long? How to deal with wallet-switching to game the leaderboards? Can the NFTs be locked to the wallet?

• What is the likelihood of increasing the weekly allocation of 100 ILV to the Beyond leaderboard?
  Would the community still support the creation of a second leaderboard if the allocation of 100 ILV is split between the leaderboards?

[deep tendon]

[ICC] - IIP-46 Illuvium Beyond Reward Structure

I approve this proposal and send it to the IMC

While I don't know if the proposed solutions are the best, it is clear that the community and more specifically the Illuvium Beyond participants want to see some changes. Leaving this so broad opens up the potential for disappointment, but also gives it the best chance to pass and see changes made.

There had been discussion around this in previous epochs as well and I'm glad to finally see some action.

[mystic pulsar]

[ICC] - IIP-46 Illuvium Beyond Reward Structure

I approve this proposal and send it to the IMC

I feel this is a good balance between continuing to compensate and motivate the whales to participate, while also making Beyond more welcoming and accessible for newcomers. There are some concerns that were voiced by the community, but seem to mostly be mechanical "issues" that the team has the flexibility to solve for within the bounds of this proposal.

[eager carbon]

[ICC] - IIP-46 Illuvium Beyond Reward Structure

I approve this proposal and pass it on to the IMC.

I appreciate how the proposal has been kept broad to allow the team to decide on the specifics, especially the strategic and technical ones for this proposal.
Community sentiment is strongly in favor, and personally, I am also in favor as it promotes a more scalable solution for the years to come. I trust Illuvium Labs will find the best solutions for the: what, when, and how.

[green magnet]

**IIP-45-R Landowner Revenue Share

I approve this proposal.**

The core change to address all digital product sales creates clarity, not just for sales within Illuvium Beyond but for all potential future products. This eliminates confusion as to which types of asset sales are relevant for Illuvium Zero while the fuel system infrastructure is built out.

The distribution and buyback methods are both 1) easy to understand and 2) easy to implement. The community has asked for more transparency and clarity on this point while keeping the core philosophy of fuel sales as a key element in our emergent gameplay.

[green magnet]

**IIP-46 Illuvium Beyond Reward Structure

I reject this proposal.**

This rejection is only a technical one. I support the core structure proposed. I had even considered co-sponsoring an IIP for this type of change as it makes our leaderboard structure sustainable and clear. It rewards long-time players but prioritizes active players through the current wave/current set mechanic. This strikes the needed balance to encourage new players to jump into collecting in future waves and sets.

That said, I am rejecting this IIP for the following reasons:

1. This IIP doesn't actually provide a clear action item and ends with the direction for the team to decide how to proceed. By definition, the team is already empowered to decide activities like this which makes this IIP as written unnecessary.
2. With a Beyond Wave 3 launch IIP needed soon(ish), it makes sense to me to include this change along with any other core configuration changes in a single IIP. There could be related changes that come up based on the need to spin up a second leaderboard structure that should be included together for Wave 3 and not as piecemeal IIPs.

I will gladly work with the councils and community to ensure these needed changes are rolled into a comprehensive IIP with any other needed changes for the next wave.

[frosty forge]

IIP-45-R Landowner Revenue Share

I approved this proposal.

Having dissected IIP-20's "Revenue Distribution" clause and consulted with the Labs, I have come to the conclusion that while Rev Share in IIP-20 specifically outlines the condition of extracting the share from fuel sales, the core intent was that land owners are intended to get 5% of in-game revenues. Therefore, this proposal not only clarifies what falls under landowner revshare, it also future proofs this for any additional digital products the DAO might build. In addition, it creates a system that allows landowners to get its revshare from in-game revenue that does not involve fuel purchases (eth/usdc) and at the same time creates a mechanism to flow it back to fuel.

With the passing of this proposal, I hope this closes the book on the ambiguity brought about by the old proposal that has been clearly outdated by the multiple events following its passing.

[frosty forge]

IP-46 Illuvium Beyond Reward Structure

I reject this proposal.

I recognize the core intent of this proposal and agree with it but have to ultimately reject this on the following grounds:

1. Vagueness - The proposal lacks specifics on some aspects of the proposal namely "3. Increasing overall no. of leaderboard spots" and "Incremental extension of rewards". It would have been preferred if this was more clearly drawn.

2. Disagreement with "2. Choosing the leaderboards you want to participate in" - I am not in favor with this direction. I dont see why players would need to choose. The variable that would incentivize would be the rewards ratio. I feel it would be better suited for players to be able to participate in both but give a better rewards for sets to incentivize purchasing d1sks each wave (credit to Blickter for raising this point)

3. Proposal needs to be re-drafted together with other Beyond issues - IMC and Labs has had several dialogues regarding Beyond and exploring critical changes in line with this proposal.

Therefore, it is my recommendation that Labs take this proposal into consideration and incorporate any clauses and draft a new proposal that is holistic and robust which outlines specific changes.

[rain aurora]

[IMC] IIP-45-R Landowner Revenue Share

I approve this proposal.

The wording used in IIP-20 was creating some issues and resulting in meaningless debates about what a game is, while not addressing the core issue of differentiating what revenue landowners should be receiving. This proposal clarifies that problem, and creates a framework for a temporary distribution system that will serve the DAO's needs until land begins producing Fuel.

[IMC] IIP-46 Illuvium Beyond Reward Structure

I reject this proposal.

The fundamental ideas discussed in this proposal are valuable, and we intend to incorporate them into Beyond. However, IIP-46 is a proposal which requests a proposal, and I feel that it's not necessary or desirable for our governance to operate this way.

The current plan is to roll the intent of IIP-46 into a larger, holistic Wave 3 proposal, working alongside Labs to ensure that incentives are landing in the places that yield the best returns for the DAO.

[supple halo]

[IMC] IIP-45-R- Landowner Revenue Share

I approve this proposal.

After dissecting the core intent of IIP-20's "Revenue Distribution," my conclusion is that this core intent was to allocate 5% of in-game revenues, not merely 5% of fuel revenues. Clarifying this and future-proofing it is a very much desired goal, that also ends current debates and prevents future once due to unclarified words, different personal opinions and or understandings.
Furthermore, this doesn't necessitate sales to be in fuel to provide landowners with the promised 5% of revenue, just for the sake of it being fuel, even if it wouldn't be optimal to do so.

[supple halo]

[IMC] IIP-46 Illuvium Beyond Reward Structure

I reject this proposal.

I concur with the underlying principles of the proposal and acknowledge their potential value for inclusion in the forthcoming Wave 3 proposal, pending a more thorough analysis to determine their optimal implementation and configuration in the best interest of the DAO.

Moreover, IIP-46 doesn't outline a specific action; rather, it presents thoughts and suggestions, ultimately calling for another proposal to be drafted. I don't believe this approach is beneficial or essential for our governance and collaboration with Labs, as they are already empowered to decide themselves about such topics, rendering the IIP unnecessary.

[eager carbon]

[ICC] IIP-48 Illuvium Beyond Individual Stretch Goals

I approve of this proposal.

The community sentiment is positive towards the suggested changes and I strongly agree with the points made in this proposal as well.

-Mega D1sks are more expensive and should offer better rewards than standard D1sks.
-The cumulative future wave rewards will have an equal impact on both D1sk types.
-The higher threshold rewards will incentivize and reward the Top Buyers, increasing sales and user satisfaction.

[ICC] IIP-47 lluvium Beyond Wave Duration Adjustment

I approve this proposal.

The community is in favor, and it seems like the best move in order to align Beyond's timeline better with the rest of the Project.

[signal swallow]

[ICC] IIP-47 lluvium Beyond Wave Duration Adjustment

I approve this proposal.

For the past 2 waves of Illuvium Beyond the team has struggled to meet the timing criteria of their partners. Even though this will naturally improve as we head into Open Beta, it makes sense to allow them more flexibility and adjust the overall Beyond timeline to better fit with the delays of releasing the official Set 1 of Illuvials with the Illuvium Open Beta.

This proposal also makes the lulls inbetween waves adjustable, allowing further flexibility for the team. Even though I personally don't love the idea of dead periods, it has some clear cut benefits and when kept in control, could easily boost revenue overall as you allow buyers to restock their funds and prepare.

The community saw this as a win and it doesn't overly encumber the team in ways that make the proposal worthless, so it seems like a strong step in the right direction.

[ICC] IIP-48 Illuvium Beyond Individual Stretch Goals

I approve this proposal.

I think its obvious that the Wave 2 stretch goals have likely added a significant amount of Mega D1sks into wave 3 of Illuvium Beyond which could hamper revenue in the short term. We must also consider that standard d1sks have equal odds for accessories and so adding them more frequently into this reward structure makes a lot of sense overall.

The best part of this proposal is rewarding those who have an interest in buying Mega D1sks rather than giving them a disadvantage when it comes to participating in the stretch goals. This will create a better balance for the entire ecosystem and make the rewards structure easier to understand for newcomers.

As the community was heavily in favour in this update and it leaves lots of room for the team, I see no reason to disagree with them.

[deep tendon]

[ICC] IIP-47 lluvium Beyond Wave Duration Adjustment

I approve this proposal.

I feel stretching the waves out longer in oder to makes the last 3 waves of set 1 last longer is important. We don't know when set 2 will arrive so this will hopefully keep the time between sets to a minimum.
I would have liked to see D1sks always available so a new player would never enter the ecosystem and not have an opportunity to buy, although a month gap between sets seems reasonable and it does give active participants a break to save up for the next wave.

[ICC] IIP-48 Illuvium Beyond Individual Stretch Goals

I approve this proposal.

I think this just makes sense and it's clear the community feels the same. This will give more incentive to buy D1sks and buying Mega D1sks won't feel like you're sacrificing stretch goal rewards

[covert horizon]

[ICC] IIP-47 lluvium Beyond Wave Duration Adjustment

I approve this proposal

Community sentiment:
For

• Upvoted 31:1 in favor.
• More time to make purchases
• Less gap between Waves

Against

• No sufficient utility to have a defined sale schedule
• Duration and timing might get changed again despite the proposal

Personal notes:

• Is it possible to sync Beyond Waves with the next Set of Illuvials?
• Can the Team provide Illuvials Set 2 release schedule? It may be a good idea to publish Beyond releases schedule

[ICC] IIP-48 Illuvium Beyond Individual Stretch Goals

I approve this proposal.

Community sentiment:
For

• Upvoted 46:1 in favor.
• Incentive people to buy more mega d1sks
• Increase overall sales

Against

• I have not seen an argument against this proposal.

Personal notes :

• Bonus or incentive generally increases sales.

[green magnet]

[IMC] IIP-47 Illuvium Beyond Wave Duration Adjustment

I decline this proposal.
This fundamentally aims to extend the future waves based on the risk of running out of Illuvitars to launch before the end of Set 1. This is not an issue from a team standpoint and so the core premise is trying to fix a minor (at worst) problem. I agree with the intention that some consistency is important. However, Beyond doesn't require a hard time cycle for any sort of competitive purpose. Linking sales directly to this type of approach via IIP restricts the team's ability to flex as needed based on a specific strategic partner or calendar topic (i.e. if a wave is going to land during end of the year it might be preferable to avoid). Having the general guidelines of 3 months per wave and a separate IIP at the start of each seems like both enough stability for the product with flexibility for the team to adjust a bit based on optimal launch windows.

[IMC] IIP-48 Illuvium Beyond Individual Stretch Goals

I approve this proposal.
This avoids unintended consequences (higher perceived value of Standard vs. Megas) observed last wave. The 5x weighting is relatively in-line with the cost/value difference and keeps the calculations fairly straightforward for players. I support the top end of 5K and 10K rewards as well. It feels like an appropriately high bar for players to clear but a strong incentive is a good one for the uber-fans and top-end players in Beyond.

[supple halo]

Due to temporary lack of access to my hardware wallet, I regretfully couldn't vote on IIP 47 and 48, but I wish to share my decisions on these proposals to maintain transparency with the community.

[IMC] IIP-47 Illuvium Beyond Wave Duration Adjustment

I (would) decline this proposal.

Non-issue According to Team: The core problem the proposal seeks to address—extending future waves due to the potential shortage of Illuvitars before the end of Set 1—is considered non-existent by the team. Thus, this proposal doesn't solve an actual current problem.

Intention vs. Impact: While the intention to ensure consistency is commendable, it introduces potential drawbacks. Specifically, it could significantly limit agility, a critical advantage Illuvium Labs holds.

Preference for Flexibility: Adhering to a general three-month guideline for each wave, coupled with the capacity to make adjustments based on current events, partnerships, or other relevant factors, is my preferred approach. This methodology offers an optimal balance, maintaining necessary stability while preserving agility.

[IMC] IIP-48 Illuvium Beyond Individual Stretch Goals

I (would) vote revisions needed on this proposal.

While I agree with the notion of adjusting the individual stretch goals rewards to reflect the different weights of Standard and Mega D1sks, further research and input from Illuvium Labs are necessary to fully understand the potential implications of these changes.

To elaborate further, firstly, altering the rewards structure to incentivize both types of D1sks equally is a positive step. However, we need to carefully consider how this adjustment might influence customer behavior and the perceived value of the products purchased. It's crucial to understand whether this change could inadvertently create a situation where one version of the D1sks is favored over the other, potentially disrupting the market dynamics.

Given the existing interval-based goals, we should further investigate how to best optimize rewards for highly dedicated players. While re-introducing rewards at specific thresholds like 5,000 and 10,000 points may offer additional incentives, we need to carefully assess whether these thresholds effectively encourage desired player behavior. Analyzing data from previous waves can provide valuable insights into player engagement and preferences, helping us tailor reward structures to maximize satisfaction and participation across all player segments. Therefore, a thorough examination of existing data and input from Illuvium Labs is crucial to inform the most effective reward strategy moving forward.

Overall, deeper analysis of data from previous Illuvitar waves is essential to inform these decisions accurately. By gathering insights into customer behavior and the impact of reward structures on sales and market dynamics, we can make more informed decisions that benefit both players and the Illuvium ecosystem in the long term.

[frosty forge]

[IMC] IIP-47 Illuvium Beyond Wave Duration Adjustment

I respectfully reject this proposal. While I do prefer that a set period is being followed for all Sets and Waves for Illuvium: Beyond, the recent delays and extensions was brought about by exigent circumstances. Namely, unintentional delays. This issue practically solves itself once we enter open beta as I would not forsee any issues that would delay the release the next sets.

If this was an issue of scope of work and cadence, IMC has been assured that Labs has enough material and buffer to keep releasing Beyond sets and waves. Even assuming the direction (to extend) is the correct one, I would prefer that Labs provide the period as they can best gauge the perfect cadence for the product.

[IMC] IIP-48 Illuvium Beyond Individual Stretch Goals

I voted for revisions on this proposal. First, I agree on the premise of the proposal on this two points: (1) Weights of Mega should have more value than Standards; and (2) Stretch Goals is net positive for the DAO. However, if we make it a 1:5 ratio it would have an adverse effect to the viability of standards. I believe a 1:3 ratio is better. It adds value to Megas but doesnt completely overruns it. As for stretch goals, I agree in principle but I prefer that Labs is better positioned to propose the key metrics and milestones needed based on the data they have collected from past waves.

[rain aurora]

[IMC] IIP-47 Illuvium Beyond Wave Duration Adjustment

I reject this proposal.

I understand that there's a subset of the community that wants Beyond Wave 3 to launch sooner than later. However, for technical and development pipeline reasons, and to avoid creating additional development work for Labs, a Wave 3 launch prior to Open Beta may not be possible. This is a major factor in why I'm rejecting this proposal.

Additionally, some of the premises used to support this proposal aren't based on fact. Labs has made it clear that they anticipate no issues with running out of content for Set 2.

I do acknowledge (and share) the desire for fixed durations for Waves, and relatively fixed intervals between Waves, but specifying those parameters on the DAO side doesn't make sense, as we are currently working around technology that isn't within the purview of Labs or the DAO. Continuity matters, but too many firm parameters are specified in this proposal, and many of those parameters cannot be met with confidence.

The feedback has been heard that there's a desire for longer Wave durations, and for a more well defined cadence to Beyond Waves.

[IMC] IIP-48 Illuvium Beyond Individual Stretch Goals

I recommend revisions to this proposal.

The core idea of this proposal is great, and shouldn't incur any substantial issues with development. Disks should be giving stretch goal points relative to their cost.

The revision I feel is required is that Labs evaluate the efficacy of higher tier point thresholds, and determine those values based on sales data. Specifically, the proposal specifies what those higher thresholds will be (5000, 10000), and specifies the rewards associated with those tiers.

I'd recommend changing the higher thresholds AND associated rewards to be determined by Illuvium Labs, so that they can reflect Labs' capacity to create rewards and can be informed by past sales data.

[signal swallow]

[ICC] IIP-49 QuestDex and Player-Driven Quest System

I approve this proposal

Firstly, it goes without saying that I apologise for missing the voting, to put it simply, my brain is essentially 24 hours behind and I never vote for a proposal unless I have the chance to explain my thoughts at the same time, so that I have my head right and I am able to think through and backread the discussions (like I am doing now).

The core principles of this proposal are what the DAO actively strives for when it comes to contribution. This proposal is not only simple and clear, but leaves enough agency to the team to avoid impeding their process. It also had no downvotes and its easy to see why the community would want this. It is purely additive to the existing gameplay systems already planned and would simply enhance the overall experience. Not only this but it would build on top of the existing social elements planned for Illuvium, which the community has shown is a high priority after Open Beta

[ICC] IIP-50 Illuvial Training Gyms for Illuvium Zero

I approve this proposal

This proposal is a culmination of a variety of other ideas, feedback and discussions that have been favourable with the community over the past month. This proposal seeks to add new features that the Illuvium Zero team has already said are feasible in the near future after the Open Beta phase has stabilised. Its features like these that not only maintain creative freedom for the team but improve upon the groundwork that Labs has built with the Interoperable Blockchain gaming ecosystem.

In the past few months there has been lots of discourse surrounding Illuvium Zero and what Landowners are entitled to given the delays since the Land sale. This proposal is a good example of a productive approach to the problem. By adding more utility to Land and building on the foundation that is Illuvium Zero, everybody wins and Illuvium becomes more interconnected than ever.

[signal swallow]

[ICC] IIP-51 Adjusting Vesting and Season Lengths for Loyalty Airdrop and Gameplay Drops

I approve this proposal

Although there is no reason to deny this proposal given the overwhelming support from the community I would still like to put my core opinion to words. This proposal, although a major improvement from the previous iteration, I feel swings too far in the other direction when it comes to providing an airdrop for the broader web 3 community. Simply put I'd like to see the IMC discuss this further and revise the 50% upfront to a lower amount.

Outside of that, the rest of this proposal achieves some fantastic improvements and balances the reward for those who are brand new to Illuvium and those who have been with the community for a long time. I expect this to better attract newcomers to the Illuvium universe and hopefully promote retention enough that many of them will choose to stay and become long-time fans.

(I had this ready at the same time, but 2hr slow mode)

[deep tendon]

[ICC] IIP-49 QuestDex and Player-Driven Quest System

I approve this proposal

I think this idea has legs. It's could solve some simples problems such as whales in the space wanting to spend more money, but not having the time to play. This can also solve the issue of those who have the time to play, but may not have the money to fund it. I'm excited to see what the IMC has to say about this one.

[ICC] IIP-50 Illuvial Training Gyms for Illuvium Zero

I approve this proposal

I like that this can give more utility to land owners and an additional sink for in-game FUEL. This can be beneficial for those who do not have time to spend leveling up Illuvials in the overworld.

[ICC] IIP-51 Adjusting Vesting and Season Lengths for Loyalty Airdrop and Gameplay Drops

I approve this proposal

I see this as a great proposal from the standpoint of existing community members which is why I believe it was supported in numbers. I can see this being enough to turn some new players away. Yes there will be many who join in just to farm airdrops, but the belief is that a % of those while enjoy the game and stay. The more that choose not to start the less opportunity there is to hook new players. I think some minor adjustments could be made to balance this one a little better.

• All 3 of these proposals were supported by the community with their upvotes and I believe each of them can become a great improvement to Illuvium. Looking forward to seeing how the IMC feels about these.

[covert horizon]

[ICC] IIP-49 QuestDex and Player-Driven Quest System

I approve this proposal.

Community sentiment:
For

• 33 upvotes.
• Sponsors can farm OW without playing the game.
• Scholars can earn and level up their illuvials.
• Offer IZ integration.

Against

• A lot of dev work.
• Is it more efficient than buying from Illuvidex?
• Overcomplicated.

Personal notes:

• imo, the quest system is an outsource system (scholarship) of a pack opening. This is good for players who have the time, and some investment, but does not want to gamble on travel cost and shards.
• The scholars would still need Illuvials to win battle, and upgraded equipments and drones. Does the Quest system need asset lending feature to be more attractive?
• How can the sponsor provide sufficient shards with the current capture chance system? With bad RNG, the scholar could ended up with unsufficient shards to finish the quest.
• How about adding a Reputation system to the scholars like fiverr, uber, airbnb?

[ICC] IIP-50 Illuvial Training Gyms for Illuvium Zero

I approve this proposal.

Community sentiment:
For

• 37 upvotes.
• Add utility to IZ.
• Utilize unused Illuvials, enhance IBG.
• Passive leveling up.
• Add fuel sink.

Against

• I have not seen an argument against this proposal.

Personal notes:

• Need Team to design the balancing, boost, cost to run, and upgrade cost.

[ICC] IIP-51 Adjusting Vesting and Season Lengths for Loyalty Airdrop and Gameplay Drops

I approve this proposal.

Community sentiment:
For

• 113 upvotes.
• Major improvement to the announced airdrop vesting.

Against

• I have not seen an argument against this proposal.

Personal notes:

• Some wordings are unclear, may need to provide an illustration.
• I prefer the forfeited tokens to be distributed to other participants who are still vesting.

[eager carbon]

[ICC] IIP-49 QuestDex and Player-Driven Quest System
I approve this proposal.

There is positive community sentiment, and I personally am all for it. This proposal gives whales the option of outsourcing the gameplay and gamers the opportunity to Play2Earn. It’s a win-win for both of these large demographics in our ecosystem.

[ICC] IIP-50 Illuvial Training Gyms for Illuvium Zero
I approve this proposal.

This one also has very positive community sentiment. Everyone loves the Pokémon version of this idea: Bill. It makes sense to integrate this feature, giving players passive leveling options, fostering interoperability between games, and providing more value to land.

[ICC] IIP-51 Adjusting Vesting and Season Lengths for Loyalty Airdrop and Gameplay Drops
I approve this proposal.

Community sentiment is extremely positive. I think it's a good middle ground between rewarding the core community well and enabling rewards for the broader web3 audience in a reasonable manner.

[real thorn]

The IMC is requesting an extension prior to voting on IIP-49 and IIP-50. The extension is being requested to gain the insights of Illuvium Labs' game development team, as both of these proposals are deeply rooted in game systems.

[signal swallow]

[ICC] IIP-53 Automated Drone Trips for Resource Gathering

I approve this proposal.

Although I personally don't like the idea of adding speedups and automation to the process of exploring and capturing Illuvials, it is clear that the community is in favour and it would benefit the DAO and their revenue in many ways.

That being said, Filow has taken an intelligent approach to this by adding an Illuvial and NFT component to add elements to this idea that it sorely needed to be remotely interesting. This discussion started so long ago and this proposal makes it a more interesting gameplay loop that maintains the core strengths while building on them.

[ICC] IIP-52 Revenue distribution pre-fuel prod. and compensation for delay

I approve this proposal.

It is clear the community wants compensation and an appropriate distribution method for any possible Illuvium Zero delay. This proposal employs a balanced and smart approach to solving this.

I personally greatly dislike the way this proposal handcuffs the team based on their performance to deliver, posing a significant risk that a poor product is delivered to counteract the communities demands. In the case of this proposal, across the first 2 Months, about $1m in value would be distributed to Landholders. On the surface this doesn't seem crazy, but it could negatively affect the economy. As we have seen in other Web 3 games, this can be detrimental in the early stages of a launch.

If this didn't say 'Example Airdrop' I would have rejected this proposal. I would like to ask the IMC to revise this proposal and adjust it based on updated timelines regarding Open Beta and Illuvium Zero.

[frosty forge]

While I am unable to vote in snapshot as I am out of the country without access to my hardware wallet, I would like to share my positions on the IIPs below:

IIP-49 QuestDex and Player-Driven Quest System
I reject this proposal.

While this idea may have merit, it would be better suited that a third-party would create this rather than allot ILV Labs to do this. Labs would be best served to focus on core features of the games such as multiplayer for overworld, combat system, etc. Especially, when this particular feature is already being serviced by the Illuvidex at its core. This feature would either bypass the DAO's 4% illuvidex fee or complicate the transaction fee which is already in place through the Illuvidex. It must be pointed out that IMC consulted with Labs as well on this which played a role in my decision to reject the proposal.

IIP-50 Illuvial Training Gyms for Illuvium Zero
I reject this proposal and request for this to be iterated and get Labs feedback.

Firstly, this feature should not include F2P lots as this will takeaway from the paid landowners. Secondly, while I appreciate the thoroughness of the IIP, it goes into too much detail in how this feature will be implemented. This can then constrict Labs both on a technical and timebound aspect. If this proposal gets passed as it is, Labs will have little agency in designing and building the feature. There needs to be more agency given to Labs in designing features as they are the subject-matter experts. Personally, I would like to see IIPs on game design, features, and systems to be more broad and allow Labs to chime in and provide feedback on how it can be built. Right now, theres a gap with the DAO and Labs as it looks like its one-way.

Will post rationale on IIP-51 after my slowmode is up as theres a character limit 😄

[green magnet]

IIP-50 Illuvial Training Gyms for Illuvium Zero

I tentatively approve this proposal pending revisions.

Including a F2P land plot mechanic here is a dangerous precedent and strongly risks problems to game balance and botting. I’m very wary of any integration with the main economic game, having watched bots and farmers destroy dozens of games in my lifetime.

The removal of F2P entirely would leave me generally in favor of the mechanic. It fits with the more passive nature of Zero, provides another integration point between the games, appears to fit reasonably well into the lore, and would (if balanced appropriately) add an additional element to the Zero economy that doesn’t feel like it would take much away from Overworld play. I would expect to have the team work through the actual game design and have the IIP go into less detail than here but functionally would support this with that change.

[green magnet]

IIP-49 QuestDex and Player-Driven Quest System

I reject this proposal.

The structure designed has two primary advantages that I believe it’s providing to players:

1. Further gamification of objectives (enhanced quests)
2. Targeted missions to retrieve/find specific assets for a reward

The first advantage can be filled (and in some cases ARE being filled) by third parties. Numerous 3rd party questing platforms could be extended and some organizations like Arcade2Earn have this sort of mission-running mechanic in place. This would save dev time from Labs while providing additional gamification that players might enjoy.

The second advantage could be better achieved by enhancements to the Illuvidex. Requesting that someone go find a specific Titanor with some unique stats or individual blueprints or fuel is just a more gamified experience of an asset sale or offer. Building out the Illuvidex offer and search mechanics likely achieves 80-90% of the value with a much lower dev lift.

IIP-51 Adjusting Vesting and Season Lengths for Loyalty Airdrop and Gameplay Drops

I approve this proposal.

This IIP addresses ILV holder and gamer concerns in a way that still maintains the original intent of the airdrops and provides better incentive alignment for participants.

[frosty forge]

continuation:

IIP-51 Adjusting Vesting and Season Lengths for Loyalty Airdrop and Gameplay Drops
I approve this proposal.

This proposal is a great example that the DAO works. Both Labs and Council heard the feedback of the community and was able to land on key changes that benefits the DAO as a whole. I can honestly say, that during the deliberations on this proposal the IMC members contributed individually in their personal assessment of each aspect that mostly aligned with DAO sentiments. Through the feedback and collaboration of Labs, the resulting output stands as a testament that with the right platform and proper rationale, DAO and Labs can properly align and address key issues properly.

[supple halo]

IIP-49 QuestDex and Player-Driven Quest System

I reject this proposal.

This proposal aims to include a more social and gamified version instead of using the Illuvidex or scholar systems directly in the Overworld.

I don’t believe Labs should allocate resources to such a system at this time. If this is a desired feature, third parties would happily work on it, allowing Labs to focus on building entirely new features that fundamentally improve the games.

Furthermore, offering in-game options to essentially trade with others, bypassing the Illuvidex, could have negative impacts. Attempting to scope these impacts currently doesn’t seem a worthwhile investment of resources.

IIP-50 Illuvial Training Gyms for Illuvium Zero

I reject this proposal.

There are multiple reasons for me to reject this proposal. The first one is that it is far too detailed. I believe proposals that want to change or implement new features in games should carry intent and maybe examples, but trying to outline exactly how something should be done will almost certainly clash with aspects unknown to the public.

Two further, more specific reasons are:

This takes away from Overworld/Arena gameplay, reducing the value of experience gained, which is one of the ways players can exchange their time for tangible value.
Free-to-play plots should be excluded from features that could generate tangible value in the same setting as NFT plots, as this would reduce the utility of NFT plots.

IIP-51 Adjusting Vesting and Season Lengths for Loyalty Airdrop and Gameplay Drops

I approve this proposal.

The shortened vesting period from six to three months, along with the option to unlock 50% of rewards immediately, provides immediate incentives, enhancing participant satisfaction and engagement.
The introduction of one-month seasons for Gameplay Drops encourages more frequent interaction, keeping the community actively involved.
These changes address community concerns, reflecting the DAO´s commitment to responsive governance when community sentiment and DAO benefits can be aligned.

Returning forfeited rewards to the treasury ensures resource sustainability for future campaigns, contributing to ecosystem stability.
Overall, IIP-51 offers immediate benefits, promotes ongoing engagement, and supports sustainable resource management, aligning with strategic objectives.

[deep tendon]

[ICC] IIP-52 Revenue distribution pre-fuel prod. and compensation for delay

I approve this proposal.

I personally do not think this is necessary as all landowners will be delayed to the same extent. IIP45R does ensure that those landowners would still receive a share of the 5% revenue. I do empathize with the community members who went heavy into land investments and plan to optimize their IZ land for fuel production. Those who choose to speak up are clearly in favor of this so I am voting to represent those voices.

[ICC] IIP-53 Automated Drone Trips for Resource Gathering

I approve this proposal.

This gives an opportunity to generate more revenue for the DAO from those who may not have the time to play the required amount of time in order to gather the desired resources.

I can see why this gained positive community support.

[rain aurora]

[IMC] IIP-49 QuestDex and Player-Driven Quest System

I reject this proposal.

There are two core reasons for this rejection.

The first reason is big picture - How does the DAO request features, and how can Labs implement them and ensure they are compelling?

Gameplay/game systems proposals are going to be tricky to handle correctly. There's a balance that needs to be struck between the community being able to request features, and giving Labs the autonomy required to make interesting and functional systems that mesh with current and future plans for game design, tech requirements, workloads and timelines.

To me, this proposal crosses that line, by specifying too much information. An approval would mean that this proposal needs to be implemented to the letter, including all the specifications for game systems. This would leave very little wiggle room for Labs to iterate on those systems or make them better.

The second reason is my personal assessment of the idea for a QuestDex.

Functionally, the questdex is a marketplace with extra steps. If a player wants X item, currently, they can go to the Illuvidex and purchase it. This is also true for combinations of items. Under the questdex systems, a player would instead create a quest (at some cost, i.e. the reward for the player who completes the quest), wait a period of time for the quest to be completed, and then receive item X.

Players min-max games, and the quest dex is a less efficient means to obtain items as compared to the marketplace. It serves the same function, it just does a worse job of performing that function (because of the reward % to the player and the time delay). There's a couple niche scenarios where the questdex could shine, such as creating incentive for players to farm large quantities of a resource that isn't otherwise available in those quantities, but they aren't common scenarios.

The end result of all of this would be a largely unused questdex, in my opinion. To be competitive with a normal marketplace, a questdex would need to have some function beyond what can already be accomplished more efficiently with the marketplace. Again, this is also something I'd want to be evaluated and determined by Labs, because there's a risk of making the questdex a mandatory system if it had exclusive rewards.

Player driven systems can be extremely interesting, but I don't believe this particular system would serve the DAO well, or be worth the development time.

[rain aurora]

[IMC] IIP-50 Illuvial Training Gyms for Illuvium Zero

I reject this proposal.

As with IIP-49 the main reason for this rejection is that too much information is specified, and that I feel it would unnecessarily restrict Labs from developing Gyms in the best possible way to impose all the specifications in this proposal on them.

As a core idea (i.e. Gyms built on IL:Z land, and used to train Illuvials, either personally for the player, or as a service offered by land owners), I think Gyms are a reasonably solid idea, and I would likely approve a request for Labs to flesh out and modify this system and bring a proposal back to the community. I also appreciate that the proposal clearly specifies that this would be post-open beta, as our current #1 priority as a DAO should absolutely remain getting our core suite of games launched.

As other council members have pointed out, the F2P segment of this needs to be reworked and thought out very carefully. Most of my thoughts are well-captured by the other IMC members.

My strong preference with these types of proposals would be for them to specify the core functions of a game system, and leave all the details and balancing up to Labs. I don't think including examples is bad, it just needs to be clear when specification is an example, and when it's something that MUST be implemented, because the latter is WAY too restrictive. I believe that kind of structure for game system proposals is vastly more workable, and is something that I could pass as a council member.

We should be mindful that Labs is a game development studio in its' own right, and that removing the autonomy to create from the process would not end well, from a product standpoint. This is evidenced by many of the world's most successful game studios taking a similar approach. Working on something they are passionate about, and being able to make changes is critical to the process and the end product. As a DAO I think we can (and should) learn from the models employed by other successful studios.

[IMC] IIP-51 Adjusting Vesting and Season Lengths for Loyalty Airdrop and Gameplay Drops

I approve this proposal.

Community feedback made it clear there were a few holes in the originally proposed airdrop structure. Labs took that feedback and iterated on the structure. I believe the proposed structure is substantially more equitable, it gives players autonomy over their airdrop rewards with elements of risk vs. reward on when those rewards are claimed, and it solves the majority of the key issues identified.

In investigating this proposal, we looked at alternative structures for airdrops, and what the outcomes of those structures were. I believe this proposal's structure avoids most of the major pitfalls of alternatives, while maximizing the benefits.

No system will ever be 100% perfect, but this one is a substantial enough improvement to warrant an approval.

[covert horizon]

[ICC] IIP-52 Revenue distribution pre-fuel prod. and compensation for delay

I approve this proposal.

Community sentiment:
For

• 43 upvotes.
• Compensates for blueprint delays
• Rewarding gameplay instead of merely holding assets
• Allows landholders time to develop their plots before claiming the pooled revenue
• Potentially offers a faster claim duration compared to IIP-49

Against

• Doubling the fuel crate airdrop for every month of delay is too harsh
• There is already a plan to increase fuel crate airdrops and token airdrops for landholders
• Prefers the distribution method from IIP-49

Personal notes:

• I agree with the distribution method of this proposal compared to IIP-49. In IIP-49, every month of delay adds 10 months to fully claim the pooled revenue, while this IIP can offer a shorter claim duration.
• I agree with the 4-6 week grace period. It gives landholders time to build their plots.
• I disagree with doubling the Fuel Crate Airdrop. The Fuel Crate Airdrop is foregoing revenue distribution. I prefer the compensation to come from the Treasury or Senior Team.
• Might consider that IZ may launch with the Open Beta.

[ICC] IIP-53 Automated Drone Trips for Resource Gathering

I approve this proposal.

Community sentiment:
For

• 28 upvotes.
• Appeals to mobile players.
• Offer passive resource farming and illuvial leveling.

Against

• Automation could take away fun and immersion from the game.
• Risk of too much supply coming from excessive passive farming.

Personal notes:

• These days, games offer more conveniences instead of hard grinding.
• It is possible that this feature can generate more revenue, although it may devalue Overworld experience.
• The potential loot acquisition should be less than 75% compared to an OW run. This needs to take into account grinders' skills and effort.
  This feature is a click of a button compared to OW's 10 minutes of shooting rocks and plants and hours spent to upgrade drone chips.
• The feature needs to account for energy, drone chips, illuvials and equipment management. The feature offers mining, harvesting and leveling-up at the same time. Meanwhile, OW players need to manage a lot of things, such as spending energy to do all three tasks or do a specialized runs. Which chips to equip, etc
• For me, this is a better solution compared to managing scholars

[green magnet]

[ICC] IIP-52 Revenue distribution pre-fuel prod. and compensation for delay

I decline this proposal.

The primary rationale behind this IIP is a delay in Illuvium Zero til after open beta. Zero will be launching at the same time as Overworld and Arena on the July 25th launch date. Additional revenue distribution structures or compensation are unnecessary based on this timeline. The advance airdrops of fuel a (and ILV rewards) for Zero players additionally serve to mitigate not having land plots available in advance and can be leveraged by land owners to fund early runs while they build up their plots.

[signal swallow]

[ICC] IIP-54 Changing Illuvium Zero Launch Timing to Synchronized Release with Overworld and Arena

I approve this proposal.

The discussions surrounding the Illuvium Zero launch have been particularly heated for the past 2 months. Although I understand the concerns of the community regarding this topic, there is only so much that the team can do to enable a smooth launch of the entire Illuvium ecosystem. I have read back through a lot of the feedback and it does address some key concerns, but without delaying the entire launch 6-8 weeks I cant see how they can be remedied. The one that jumps out at me is the flat fuel production boost seems high on paper and doesn't address all of the disadvantages Megacities may now face. However in the bigger picture, it is a tiny boost given how few megacities exist and the overcompensation will help make up for the unfortunate circumstances. I am not delighted by the fact that blueprints will be delayed and the game wont produce fuel before the Overworld launch but it is clear the team cares about making landholders whole one way or another.

[ICC] IIP-55 Training Grounds, Illuvial Staking and TrainingDex

I approve this proposal.

Off the back of the other training gyms proposal, the community has come together to flesh out the design of this new system for Illuvium Zero. Not only that, but it better incorporates Illuvial NFTs in line with the promise of the Illuvium DAO to make Illuvials the heart and soul of every Illuvium game. On top of all this I do appreciate that the proposal has a combination of predetermined structure while leaving a lot of room for the team to make their own judgements and tweak balance as necessary. This is a good example of the ways the DAO can be utilised to benefit the community and create simple systems to enhance the Illuvium gaming experience.

[ICC] IIP-56 Competitive Open Beta Launch

I approve this proposal.

I honestly wasn't sure how to handle this proposal given the team have already confirmed that Arena rewards WILL return for the Arena and Gauntlet before Open Beta launches. That being said, its clear the Illuvium Arena community are diehard fans of Illuvium and love the game. I know from firsthand experience just how hard it is to play in a competitive arena when the matchmaking doesn't have enough player volume to function and the community clearly agrees. Even though I always felt like this topic was a given, I don't see any harm to having it in writing. I would like to implore the IMC to revise the proposal so that it includes Gauntlet in the language to prevent future unneccessary IIPs from being created.

[eager carbon]

[ICC] IIP-52 Revenue distribution pre-fuel prod. and compensation for delay
I approve this proposal.

Somewhat outdated as most of the points of this proposal have been addressed by the team or in other IIPs. Nevertheless, there are some important points in it that have positive community sentiment behind it.

[ICC] IIP-53 Automated Drone Trips for Resource Gathering
I approve this proposal.

I like the idea. It might be a little bit too detailed, leaving not much room for interpretation on exactly how it will work. For example, not being able to play Overworld while the drone is on a trip doesn't sound perfect. Maybe making drone trips with the unused drones, while you can still go for Overworld runs with the one you are using, might be better. All in all, it's a solid idea with very positive sentiment behind it.

[ICC] IIP-54 Changing Illuvium Zero Launch Timing to Synchronized Release with Overworld and Arena
I approve this proposal.

Makes sense to release the games as one pack. The earlier promise with IIP-39 fell flat because game development is not predictable. This is still a very good solution for the Illuvium ecosystem as a whole. Very positive community sentiment.

[ICC] IIP-55 Training Grounds, Illuvial Staking and TrainingDex
I approve this proposal.

Great idea, very similar to the HappyBallz proposal but with some additions to open it up for interactions with other players. Very positive community sentiment.

[ICC] IIP-56 Competitive Open Beta Launch
I approve this proposal.

Makes sense to incentivize Arena Players similar to Overworld Players. Illuvium is planning something to make up for the unfair distribution of airdrop points in the Testnet, so I don't think this is needed. But the community sentiment is very positive, plus I see a case here for: if it doesn't help, it doesn't hurt.

[frosty forge]

Unfortunately, the hotfix that would allow me to vote while im on leave got delayed and snapshot was taken before it was activated. Therefore, Im giving my rationale and position here instead.

[IMC] IIP-52 Revenue distribution pre-fuel prod. and compensation for delay

I reject this proposal.

Many of the clauses of the proposal is outdated through new developments with the new launch timeline and other proposals that have better application. More importantly, the rationale on compensation and pressuring IMC to prioritize Zero has no foundation nor basis.

Revise the method of distributing the revenue share during the pre-fuel production phase from a tier-based system to one based on monthly fuel sales.

This has been addressed fully by IIP-54 Changing Illuvium Zero Launch Timing to Synchronized Release with Overworld and Arena which incudes fuel generation rendering pre-fuel production phase moot as it no longer applies.

Introducing a weekly airdrop serves a dual purpose: compensating land investors for the extended delay of profits and urging the IlluviumMainCouncil to prioritize Zero development alongside Arena and Overworld.

The implementation of the multiplier for the airdrop is solely designed to ensure the launch of Illuvium: Zero as soon as possible.

Weve established that the simultaenous launch of IZ with the other games on July 25 has rendered most if not all clauses of the proposal moot, Id also like to put special mention that there needs to be a shift in mindset that the push or urging would have little to no impact in prioritizing Zero. Its a futile and totally unrelated directive because there was never a situation that IMC influenced the development of Zero as this is ultimately the realm of Labs. Not to mention the proposed 'compensation'/urging would be at the cost of stakers. Therefore, I implore the community to keep in mind that the unintended effects of the clauses they propose to ensure that it is both equitable and fair.

IIP-53 Automated Drone Trips for Resource Gathering

I vote to have this proposal revised.

In principle the concept is good. Its another sink for the game and addresses an aspect of the game that perhaps players are not interested or would like to increase its efficiency. What I would like for this proposal to be revised would be to differentiate the concept that will allow Labs more leeway in ideating and providing its own features on how to execute the concept while segmenting the feedback/ideas of the community which may or may not influence the final product.

It is important to note that when it comes to game system proposals, Labs need to have breadth in terms of shaping the features without being pigeonholed by the proposal. While the author has stated a future IIP will be needed, the feedback/ideas should be segmented and clear that its not part of the proposal. Id also like to note that this is not in anyway the fault of the proponent but a lack of clarity on how a proposal on game systems needs to be written. This is a gap in the process which we will need to address sooner rather than later.

[green magnet]

IIP-54 Changing Illuvium Zero Launch Timing to Synchronized Release with Overworld and Arena

I approve this proposal.

Fully aligned with Illuvium Labs for development purposes. I think the megacity multipliers could have been a bit higher to recognize the impact in early stages (especially on blueprint generation). However, the entire concept of megacities was always planned as an expansion after open beta. Having it launch shortly after open beta does and providing additional compensation gives substantial recognition for the community members who made the effort to build 2x2 and 3x3 plots.

IIP-55 Training Grounds, Illuvial Staking and TrainingDex

I decline this proposal.

This has much similarity with IIP-50 that I approved with revisions included. I reject this as the two ideas need to be merged into a final IIP. The final form needs MUCH less detail as well as game design responsibilities reside within Illuvium Labs and should not be passed at this level in governance.

IIP-56 Competitive Open Beta Launch

I decline this proposal.

Arena rewards are already planned at open beta launch as part of the marketing strategy so this is redundant. This proposal also miscommunicates the relationship between each of the titles in the ecosystem within the rationale section and should not be treated as the official position of the DAO.

[covert horizon]

[ICC] IIP-54 Changing Illuvium Zero Launch Timing to Synchronized Release with Overworld and Arena

I approve this proposal.

Community sentiment:
For

• 73 upvotes.
• No IZ delay.
• More fuel crates airdrop.
• Good compensation for megacity delay.

Against

• Megacity delay would diminish the advantage of owning a MC in the early-game.
• Fuel sales multiplier does not compensate the lost of early-game advantages.
• Blueprints should not be delayed.
• IZ should be launched before the other games.
• Fuel bonus should be applied in the game, instead of on the fuel exchange.

Personal notes:

• The proposal is already an improvement over the delay in launching IZ.
• I agree that fuel sales boost may not be a good enough compensation for MC delay

[ICC] IIP-55 Training Grounds, Illuvial Staking and TrainingDex

I approve this proposal.

Community sentiment:
For

• 38 upvotes.
• Offer passive Illuvials leveling
• Additional utility for IZ
• Offer additional revenue to landholders

Against

• I have not seen an argument against this proposal.

Personal notes:

• I believe in introducing more utilities to IZ
• These days, games offer more convenience instead of hard grinding
• The idea provides more elements and fuels sink
• Passive leveling need to be much more costly than actively leveling the Illuvials
• The Team need to work out details and balancing

[ICC] IIP-56 Competitive Open Beta Launch

I approve this proposal.

Community sentiment:
For

• 42 upvotes.
• Need incentive to play the arena
• Queue is long
• P2A has not included the arena

Against

• I have not seen an argument against this proposal.

Personal notes:

• Arena should be incentivized because it is the main driver of ILV revenue
• The Team has planned to resume rewards with the launch of the Gauntlet, although it is unclear when will it be

[supple halo]

IIP-52 Revenue Distribution Pre-Fuel Production and Compensation for Delay

I decline this proposal.

Most of this proposal is outdated now that it is confirmed that IZ, Arena, and Overworld will launch simultaneously on July 25th. Illuvium Zero players who wanted to fund their Overworld runs via their land can do so due to prior fuel airdrops mentioned in IIP-54.

We've established that the simultaneous launch of IZ with the other games on July 25 renders most, if not all, clauses of the proposal moot.

Furthermore, I don't believe penalizing ILV stakers to provide additional gains for landowners is a fair solution, as it would set a bad precedent. We should always aim for beneficial outcomes for the DAO as a whole.

IIP-53 Automated Drone Trips for Resource Gathering

I vote for revisions needed.

I agree with the fundamental idea of allowing players to spend money to save time when acquiring in-game assets. The important part is ensuring that the average price of assets acquired through this expedited process is higher than through regular Overworld gameplay.

Additionally, many checks are needed to avoid damaging the previously established economy or gameplay. This includes, but is not limited to, considering the bonding curve, lore, and quests. Therefore, additional feedback from Labs is very much needed.

IIP-54 Changing Illuvium Zero Launch Timing to Synchronized Release with Overworld and Arena

I vote to approve this proposal.

This proposal fully aligns with Illuvium Labs' desired and feasible game development plans and addresses and resolves many concerns from the community.

I believe the temporary fuel production boosts on Mega Cities, initially only promised as an expansion, are a fair solution after mixed expectations arose due to various comments between the Land sale and now.

The additional Fuel Crate will allow players to fund their own runs and/or ensure initial fuel availability.

IIP-55 Training Grounds, Illuvial Staking, and TrainingDex

I vote to decline this proposal.

While the fundamental idea of an additional building in Illuvium Zero that is interconnected with other games is interesting, I worry about the gameplay integration and economic implications.

Allowing the gain of experience outside of the planned Arena/Overworld combat could harm the intended economy and be a severe issue for players who wanted to engage in classic play-to-earn activities, such as leveling Illuvials (spending time to acquire stronger in-game assets).

Aside from the potentially negative economic and gameplay implications, this proposal, similar to many gameplay-related ones, is far too detailed and may not allow Labs to integrate it smoothly into the current, in-development, and planned systems.

As council members, we should strive to bring clarity to the process of proposing ideas for new systems in the games, as these proposals should not be made with such great detail at this level of governance.

IIP-56 Competitive Open Beta Launch

I vote to decline this proposal.

There are already plans to give the leaderboards more meaning beyond pride at launch, making this IIP redundant.

Furthermore, I disagree with the fundamental idea that players need rewards to want to play a game. Incentivizing gameplay and introducing reasons for leaderboard ranks to matter beyond pride is certainly an industry standard, especially in web3 compared to web2. Enhancing the value of leaderboard ranks often improves the gameplay experience.

The problem with forcing rewards is that it also incentivizes unsportsmanlike behavior, discourages taking breaks when beneficial for players, and limits the options for making leaderboard ranks matter. In my opinion, rewards in a monetary or equivalent sense are mainly a short-term stepping stone before better systems can be implemented.

[rain aurora]

[IMC] IIP-52 Revenue distribution pre-fuel prod. and compensation for delay

I decline this proposal.

The core premise for this proposal was based on IL:Z launching after Overworld and Arena. Since this is not the case, per IIP-54, that premise is now invalid.

The incentives for what group would benefit and what group would be harmed by this proposal were, in my opinion, misaligned. Escalating airdrop amounts of fuel would harm stakers and benefit IL:Z land holders. Again, this doesn't matter much now since IL:Z is launching with OW/Arena, but taking from a group that never made a decision to push IL:Z to after OW/Arena doesn't make logical sense to me.

[IMC] IIP-53 Automated Drone Trips for Resource Gathering

I decline this proposal.

It's genuinely desirable to see how the current systems work before putting in any kind of bypass for resource acquisition. We have a marketplace implemented, that marketplace is monetized appropriately and it creates an ongoing incentive for people to play Illuvium, which means better testing data, better metrics for player numbers and hours played, and a more engaging experience. Under current systems, players can utilize the marketplace to make decisions about what activity they engage in. If you hate mining or gathering, you can instead capture Illuvials, sell them, and buy your ingots/gems/essences. That player agency is, in my opinion, intended and desirable.

It's possible that a passive resource generation system would be good to implement after launch, when we have more data on player behavior and can better determine the demand for passive generation and player behavior around mining and gathering. However, I believe it's currently pre-emptive to create a bypass for normal game systems.

Additionally, I think there is too much specification included in this proposal. Labs needs room to build and tweak game systems, and too much detail would unnecessarily restrict that process.

[IMC] IIP-54 Changing Illuvium Zero Launch Timing to Synchronized Release with Overworld and Arena

I approve this proposal.

A launch of IL:Z before or concurrently with Overworld and Arena has always been the goal. This proposal formalizes that launch rollout, and gives additional information about when players can expect blueprints and megacities to be implemented.

This topic is less of a DAO issue, and more of a delivery issue. Labs is working as quickly as possible to get everything ready for mainnet launch, and there are hard limitations to how much can be completed before launch. IL:Z being live for launch is a priority, and while it would be nice to have BP and Megacities live as well, that is simply not possible. This proposal is a middle ground that I believe is the best available solution.

[IMC] IIP-55 Training Grounds, Illuvial Staking and TrainingDex

I decline this proposal.

The bulk of my concern is that this proposal goes into way too much detail for the systems outlined. My rationale is very similar to what I provided for IIP-50. #📯〕council-chambers message

Gyms or Training Grounds are a compelling idea, but a proposal to flesh this system out should involve:

1. A high level overview of what the system does. (ex. Training Grounds are a structure buildable on Illuvium: Zero land plots. They provide a means of training Illuvials, granting experience.)
2. A request for Labs to deliver a fleshed out system as a proposal to be voted on. This leaves the agency to create the system in a way that will mesh with current game systems and meet tech requirements with Labs. Labs is the best equipped party to set those specifications.
3. An open timeline. Labs is extremely busy with getting our current offerings ready for mainnet launch, and so leaving the timeline to deliver on new game systems open is critical.

Examples can be included, but it should be explicit that they are suggestions, not required specification.

[rain aurora]

[IMC] IIP-56 Competitive Open Beta Launch

I decline this proposal.

I do agree with the premise that we should have competitive Arena play on launch. However, I don't believe that needs to look exactly the same as the Leaderboard implementation we had previously. It's a bit unclear what specific rewards are being requested, but the way I read this proposal, it's requesting that the previously existing system be implemented 1:1. Labs does have plans for rewards for Arena and other game modes, and I believe it's best to let those plans be implemented at Labs discretion, rather than tie them to the older leaderboard setup.

Essentially, airdrops, rewards and leaderboards are marketing costs, and we need to ensure the DAO is receiving appropriate ROI from those costs. We'll continue to monitor the efficacy of our marketing campaigns and act accordingly.

[green magnet]

IIP-50-R Illuvial Training Gyms for Illuvium Zero

I approve this proposal.

Illuvial gyms on land plots has come up multiple times as a community proposal to create tighter integration between the primary games. It provides another meaningful utility for land plots and gives another strong reason for players to begin pushing to develop F2P land plots. My only notable recommendation for the team is that I __strongly __recommend that only T0 Illuvials should be trainable on T0 land to avoid major problems with bots.

This is a great example of the community identifying a compelling feature set and use case that fits within the world and allowing the team to design around it.

[signal swallow]

IIP-57 Removal of Tier 5 Stage 3 Illuvials bought on the Illuvidex from Airdrop Point Eligibility

I decline this proposal.

Although this is a neat idea in theory, there are many reasons this proposal now feels outdated and unnecessary. Firstly, the changes initially implemented were done so on the basis to simplify the airdrop experience and make it more straightforward. This would overcomplicate the systems with surprisingly little reason to. The other part of this is with the new rules regarding Holo and Dark Holo Illuvials, there may be more discussion to be had before following through with proposals regarding the rules of the airdrop. Ultimately, there are so few T5S3 that exist, and even less being actively sold that this might create a mountain of work for Labs without much need to when their focus is currently on getting ready for the Main Net launch.

[supple halo]

IIP-50-R Illuvial Training Gyms for Illuvium Zero

I decline this proposal.

I don't oppose the idea of this additional building in Illuvium Zero, and I think we should certainly revisit it in the future.

The problems at hand are that it would impact the planned economy and reduce the value of farming experience on Illuvials in the Arena and Overworld, which was previously planned to be exclusive to those parts of the game.

Part of Illuvium's free-to-play features includes this exact experience farming. Taking away from that before we have seen this part of the economy on Mainnet and have further data to make educated decisions on whether this is a net positive or if it only shifts value from one part of the ecosystem to another is premature.

[eager carbon]

IIP-57 Removal of Tier 5 Stage 3 Illuvials bought on the Illuvidex from Airdrop Point Eligibility

I decline this proposal.

I think this would not be an improvement to the current Airdrop System, and I can see a lot of community members being negatively impacted by this. I don't think we should retroactively change systems unless there is a critical mistake that needs fixing.

Yes, T5S3 can be bought with "fake" money, so people with sEth farming bots have millions to spend. But as many others have mentioned, this is actually a very beneficial testing scenario for Illuvium. We can observe what happens if huge whales just come in and buy up the market. Will the community respond by raising floor prices to multi-millions? At which point, probably the "fake" money becomes worth more than you actually gain from airdrop points.
This is an extreme example of the real world market and I also approve of the simplicity that the "include everything in wallet for airdrops" change has brought.

Also, the proposal is outdated with the recent changes, as Scoriox mentioned above.

Overall, I think the positive community sentiment comes from a small minority, and the bulk of the community would be negatively impacted by this change.

[mystic pulsar]

IIP-57 Removal of Tier 5 Stage 3 Illuvials bought on the Illuvidex from Airdrop Point Eligibility

I decline this proposal.

After looking at the data on how many people are buying/farming large amounts of sepETH, I believe this has an insignificant impact on the Airdrop / Points of the greater community.

More importantly, this creates a more realistic testnet economy for the team to analyze. Not only is this valuable information, but it also benefits the community hustlers that are collecting illuvials they can "sell" for huge amounts of sepETH. Those individuals can then take that sepETH and fill the gaps of other illuvials they need for their Airdrop Points. For these reasons, I believe it is a win/win scenario to not disable this ability to sell T5S3 illuvials at this time.

[frosty forge]

[IMC]

**IIP-54 Changing Illuvium Zero Launch Timing to Synchronized Release with Overworld and Arena
**
I approve this proposal.

This is a no brainer. The proposal originated from Kieran/Labs and outlines what will make it to Open Beta Launch. This proposal also addresses initial fuel scarcity and placates many of the concerns of the community.

IIP-55 Training Grounds, Illuvial Staking, and TrainingDex

I vote to have this revised.

Conceptually, the idea is good. However, the issue with it is that theres a propensity to pigeonhole labs in building this. It needs to more high level concept rather than granular. Again, like the previous IIPs, this is not the fault of the proponent but an issue that its not clear how these proposals should be written out to be acceptable. Thankfully, council is working on a policy that will address this and give better guidelines on how game system proposals shall be written.

[IMC] IIP-56 Competitive Open Beta Launch

I vote to reject.

In principle, I agree 100% that competitive arena is important on launch. However, after conferring with Labs on this IIP, it has come to light that this was always the intention but not in the same parameters. Therefore, it would be more prudent to allow Labs to implement what they already have planned and we make adjustments once information is made public if it doesnt align to what the DAO wants.

[covert horizon]

[ICC] IIP-57 Removal of Tier 5 Stage 3 Illuvials bought on the Illuvidex from Airdrop Point Eligibility

I decline this proposal.

Community sentiment:
For

• 48 upvotes.
• Players could farm points without playing the game
• Unfair to players who have spent time testing the game

Against

• Selling illuvials could mean selling airdrop points
• Players could have purchased T5S3 from genuine playing
• Not ideal to change the rules midway
• Simulate mainnet economy

Personal notes:

• I disagree with including purchased illuvials for the airdrop points.
• I prefer the P2A to reward ingame activities like catching, mining, harvesting, leveling and winning matches, instead of just snapshotting wallets.
• I disagree with changing a major rule then reverting back in the middle of a season.
• In my opinion, it is way too late to make the change as per proposal.
• I have checked a few players from the top ten buyers on illuvidex, and they are playing the game.
• I have requested play-time for each of the top ten buyers from the Team and unfortunately I didn't receive the data.

[signal swallow]

[ICC] IIP-58 Coherent and Consistent Airdrop Structure

I approve this proposal.

I will preface this by saying that it is important to me that testing the game is the top priority at all times and which players get airdrop points at different phases of the event is a secondary benefit. However, although the airdrop points have had a strong impact on the game, introduced new players and allowed the team to gather new data, it has fundamentally damaged the capability of testing, maybe for the remainder of testnet. If the airdrop is used as a mechanism to incentivise player behaviour to test the game, then the Holo and Dark Holo points were successful in doing so, but as an added effect they have essentially eliminated testing every other aspect of the game.

Testing is all about forcing a player to make critical decisions over and over again, and checking to see where the game needs to balance, adjust its mechanics or fix holes in the gameplay loop. Right now there is no decision making left, its simply find and capture Holo Illuvials. For this reason, I have approved this proposal since this change is misaligned with how I view this testing phase and without walking it back will have very narrow testing capabilities from now until July 25. Honestly, I expect the team has already come to this conclusion, but see no harm in approving this proposal.

On this occasion the community is split, many decline the proposal because they believe leaving the team to test on their own agenda is important and the more dominant half feels it invalidates the airdrop points of those that have played prior. Unfortunately, I feel so strongly about this proposal in a completely different direction, that I have decided to consider their viewpoints but also add my own in order to approve this proposal.

[mystic pulsar]

[ICC] IIP-58 Coherent and Consistent Airdrop Structure

I declined this proposal.

This is one that I was fairly torn on and needed some time to think through. I see both sides here.

For: The argument can be made that this disproportionally influences a player's behavior to only seek out holo/dark holos, and to bypass the rest of the game loop.

Against: The argument can be made that holos/dark holos should be sought after and prioritized, and the ability for new players to jump in points so quickly if they find some luck is driving a lot of new player interest.

After thinking about it, I disagree that all players are cutting out the other aspects of the game loop and only prioritizing holo/dark holos. To suggest this is the case would imply that players are only here for airdrop points, and not to experience the game. I believe there are many still playing the game for what it is, because they are enjoying it, and any points they get along the way are fine too. I don't see the inclusion of holos/dark holos and the subsequent points to subtract from that player's experience.

With all of that said, I can see why many in the community are feeling that the holos/dark holos are overdone here. For those primarily focused on farming airdrop points, I can see why this is worrisome. The inclusion of this "lottery-like" experience in finding a super rare T5S3 dark holo can make other efforts feel meaningless but only within the context of airdrop farming.

As a result of the split community sentiment, I have opted to vote in what I believe is best for the players playing the game for fun, and for the team in their efforts to test how player behavior is impacted by the "lottery-like" experience that T5S3~ dark holos can introduce.

Much love to both sides of this discussion.

[covert horizon]

[ICC] IIP-58 Coherent and Consistent Airdrop Structure

I approve this proposal.

Community sentiment:
For

• 44 upvotes.
• High holo points is changing the gameplay.
• Early players feel disadvantaged.
• It is more luck based.

Against

• 26 downvotes.
• The Team might have wanted to influence players behaviour to test certain aspect of the game.
• High holo points is a good marketing
• A way to get new players or retain old players.

Personal notes:

• I requested data from the Team but I haven't received it until the voting is up.
• I personally started playing again because of the introduction of holo points. It is so much easier for me to get airdrop points because of how common the holos are and how high the holo points are.
• Having said that, I do believe the holo points need some balancing. I got more points by capturing holos in a day than completing sets over 2 weeks.
• The introduction of new ways to get airdrop points should complement not replace.

[eager carbon]

IIP-58: Coherent and Consistent Airdrop Structure

I declined this proposal after careful consideration.

I voted against it because I believe the active playing community would be worse off. This proposal aims to retroactively change something that has already been introduced over a week ago. For me, this is rightening a wrong with another wrong. Players who have farmed for dark holos under the current system would feel cheated.

Another point is that the proposal is too detailed. Exact numbers shouldn't be dictated in the proposal; instead, Illuvium Labs should decide the specific strategy. The proposal should focus on the overarching idea.

I also believe this decision is best for the DAO and the project's long-term health. The team needs to test the game in its current setting, where holos and dark holos are the ultimate rewards. This testing phase helps us understand how different types of players react: hardcore gamers, casual players, and hyper-casual players. It's in our best interest to let Illuvium Labs test their game before release. For instance, many agree that master shards were too cheap and are now too expensive, but forcing changes on that now wouldn't be good for the project. The team is testing edge cases and specific settings.

Regarding the lottery part, the airdrop premise was never meant to be a direct correlation between playtime and rewards. Playtime increases the chances of hitting the dark holo lottery but doesn't guarantee it. This prepares the community for the mainnet, where the luckiest players will get the rare assets, not necessarily those with the most hours. It's similar to opening card packs: more packs don't guarantee hitting the jackpot. The current lottery with dark holos mirrors what the mainnet will be like.

Personally, I'd like the holo and dark holo points to be 10x less, but I don't support retroactively changing it. I think it would be a net negative for the community and the project as a whole.

[deep tendon]

[ICC] IIP-58 Coherent and Consistent Airdrop Structure

I approve this proposal.

Honestly, I could have gone either way on this and because it wasn't an easy decision I voted to approve in order to IMC to weigh in.

Holo points have changed gameplay, to the point where airdrop points rely much more on luck. This made the points accumulated up to the change less valuable. However there are some changes that made being early an advantage such as being able to catch more than 3 Illuvials per encounter and farming master shards.

With that being said I can see the core community is not in favor of this change. I am interested to see how the IMC feels abotu this.

[green magnet]

IIP-58-R Coherent and Consistent Airdrop Structure

I approve this proposal.

The sentiment from the community on why this is important is spot on. The revisions to the original version are exactly the type of adjustments needed to bring this in-line as an actionable change moving forward that captures the spirit and intent. And that's all about one thing...TRUST. It's so easy to lose trust with your community and it makes sense that people working hard to test out open beta don't want to feel like there are major rules changes to the airdrop that retroactively impact them. Having a phased approach to a campaign when you have major rules changes gives players a chance to retain the autonomy of how much time (and eventually money) they want to allocate to participate with a transparent structure each step of the way. It also allows the team to make changes when needed for the good of the project. This is a good set of adjustments across the board.

[supple halo]

IIP-58-R Coherent and Consistent Airdrop Structure

I approve this proposal.

I agree with the feedback that changes to a system feel bad after players have made decisions based on their own circumstances. Informing players that "This is Part 1, there will be a Part 2" should make them aware of upcoming changes, but it will still introduce the feeling of winners and losers, as the ratio of resources spent to acquire points likely changes. Currently, this resource is mainly time, but it could also be money in the future.

I dislike rewarding or penalizing people based on hindsight actions, as this sets poor precedents and could be abused. It is also difficult to "act fast" because of the marketplace, so a change, and then another one an hour or a day later, could cause more harm to those who wanted to engage in the market part of the games. It also discourages market participation, as people become worried about another change, feeling a lot of uncertainty and as if they are gambling on whether there will be another change or not.

The revised version of IIP-58 addresses both of my major concerns by introducing the certainty of sub-periods. There will still be people who feel like winners or losers due to the sub-periods or changes, but the sub-periods certainly minimize the impact and allow for beneficial changes to be implemented more easily.

[signal swallow]

IIP-60 Gameplay Feature Proposal

I approve this proposal.

In the past there has been some level of disconnect between the DAO and Labs in terms of achieving proposals put forward by the community. This proposal is a healthy improvement where it still allows the community to communicate freely with the DAO and at the same time sets clear guidelines and boundaries to give Labs the freedom to execute. This way the best ideas are executed first, and it allows new ideas and improvements to be incorporated into existing internal frameworks.

Because of this the community was in favour and so am I 🙂

IIP-59 Illuvium Alliance Program

I abstain from this proposal.

This proposal benefits many parties including but not limited to third party websites, guilds and individual creators. I stand to benefit from all 3, and for that reason I can't possibly bring myself to vote on this proposal. On a personal level I like to believe this is greatly beneficial for the DAO as a tested and true method of expanding the reach of a video game to a larger audience.

[green magnet]

IIP-60 Gameplay Feature Proposal

I approve this proposal.

This IIP allows each entity (Labs, Community, and Council) to do what they do best. The lines of who should be designing the game (Labs) vs. proposing ideas and giving feedback on product (Community) vs. weighing sentiment and broader impacts (Council) were a bit blurry with the IIP structure. This is a great starting point and we will be able to iterate on this over the coming years now that open beta is upon us.

IIP-59 Illuvium Alliance Program

I approve this proposal.

This creates a high quality affiliate program that both encourages larger creators to bring their audience into the Illuvium ecosystem and creates a pathway for new creators to start. Affiliate programs among creators are typically the most successful marketing spend that games have and Illuvium must leverage this channel well to continue to grow the player base. As long as the program is bringing in net new users and not only pulling revenue from the existing community it's working as intended. This is an important consideration and one that Labs must continue to review including the relative amounts for various tiers.

Disclosure: Lizard Labs (Ethlizards' studio) will participate in this program.

[frosty forge]

[IMC] IIP-58 & IIP-58-R Coherent and Consistent Airdrop Structure

I approve IIP-58-R.

In the original IIP-58, I voted for revisions due to the fact that the previous proposal lacked actionable items. With IIP-58-R, the action items are clear. It ensures that airdrop mechanics, once announced, will not be arbitrarily revised unless the specific conditions are made present. This ensures that the integrity of fairness and equality is maintained through out the period.

IIP-59 Illuvium Alliance Program

I approve.

This program enables Labs marketing team to tap KOLs that are outside the Illuvium ecosystem and have wider reach. Illuvium will now be reaching a new market that was previously unaware of its existence therefore possibly increasing revenue from outside the usual channels.

Additionally, the payment system is merit based. This ensures that the DAO is not losing a percentage of the revenue to KOLs that are not bringing in revenue through their audience. Having a the code be refreshed every 30 days ensures that these KOLs are not doing one and done marketing. For these KOLs to continue earning their share, they will be pushing their codes through more Illuvium content in their platforms. This ensures that Illuvium's brand will always be marketed and be top of mind for KOLs and its audience.

Conflict-of-Interest:
I would like to point out that Illuvidata stands to benefit from this program and will actively participate. However, I would like to clarify that I personally do not see any conflict as there is no special advantage given to the council members hence why I am voting on this proposal. The conditions for participating are clear and relatively low-barrier that is applied equally to all. And at the end of the day, this program benefits the DAO as a whole, whether through new revenue channels and/or the constant marketing push coming from multiple KOLs.

IIP-60 Gameplay Feature Proposal

I approve.

This was a much needed proposal since so many ideas were being pushed by the DAO but lacked structure and guidance. Expectations for what the DAO can propose and what Labs can do with it are clearly defined.

I thank Blickter for agreeing to incorporate my recommended changes to the his initial draft, namely, introducing a two-step approval process:

Flow:
Going from ideation to implementation will be a double approval process. The steps required are outlined below:

1. A community member posts a GFP for community review and upvoting.

2. Council voting takes place. An approval at this step moves to step 3, while a rejection stops the process.

3. Idea is added to the planned feature list.

4. Labs will present a high-level GDD outlining their preferred implementation. This GDD is also subject to community review and upvoting.

5. Council voting takes place. An approval at this step gives Labs a green light to move ahead with development.

By having the DAO approve the feature Labs conceptualized based on the original proposal, Labs wont waste time, effort, and money in developing the feature only to be rejected or pushed to revise again by the DAO as what happened in other features and tools that was passed through governance ideas.

[covert horizon]

[ICC] IIP-59 Illuvium Alliance Program

I approve this proposal.

Community sentiment:
For

• 64 upvotes.
• Could bring in new market.
• Better than paying upfront fees to influencers.
• Expense is aligned with revenue.
• 30 days ensure influencers keep promoting the game

Against

• Taking out from revdis.
• Slippery slope.
• The Content Creator reward did not significantly increase our numbers.

Personal notes:

• Affiliate program is a proven concept in web2 and web3.
• I am more concern about generating revenue than losing revdis
• I will personally use the code to get revenue and discount for myself
• What stops whales from using their own codes to get a personal discount?

[ICC] IIP-60 Gameplay Feature Proposal

I approve this proposal.

Community sentiment:
For

• 30 upvotes.
• Authors can go into more detail
• Community have a say in how the Labs implement the proposal

Against

• 2 downvotes.

Personal notes:

• An improvement to the current process of proposing a game feature
• Team need to provide a comprehensive reasoning to reject a GFP.
• Fun, as a reason to reject a GFP, is highly subjective.

[eager carbon]

[ICC] IIP-59 Illuvium Alliance Program

I approve this proposal.

Extremely positive community sentiment.
I think this will greatly benefit the DAO.
Proven concept in Web2 and Web3.

[ICC] IIP-60 Gameplay Feature Proposal

I approve this proposal.

Very positive community sentiment.
I think it's a needed improvement to the current game feature proposal process.

[supple halo]

IIP-59 Illuvium Alliance Program

I approve this proposal.

The Alliance Program is the most efficient and lowest-risk way for Illuvium to engage Content Creators, Influencers, and Entities like Guilds or Companies in promoting Illuvium. It is highly efficient and low risk due to its structure of only paying if they manage to onboard players who also spend in the game. Because of the need to onboard paying customers, there is a high incentive to create high-quality content on a continuous basis as well.

It is relevant to note that the program needs to be monitored to ensure it accomplishes the previously described goals and does not simply lower revenue from the currently engaged players.

Disclosure: As an individual Content Creator, I will partake in this program. Due to the very low barrier of entry and council members having no advantage over anyone else, I feel comfortable voting on this. From personal experience in doing various forms of sponsored content in my career, I know this program incentivizes the highest possible quality of content, and there is no way to "cheat" a metric like revenue generated to extract money from Illuvium without generating new players.

IIP-60 Gameplay Feature Proposal

I approve this proposal.

The process of suggesting gameplay features via IIPs often lacked structure and brought many hurdles with it. IIPs are similar to laws and have to be followed in detail, which can be problematic when developing a gaming feature, as changes or issues may arise during development.

With this proposal, the community has an easier way to propose ideas that Labs can act on and optimize for current situations or upcoming releases. This wouldn't be possible with the IIP process without requiring further IIPs or ICCPs every time Labs wants to change something about the feature introduced via IIP.

[signal swallow]

IIP-61 Fuel Allocation for Marketing Purposes

I approve this proposal.

Even though at the time of writing, this proposal has a vast majority of upvotes I am not sure the discussion really demonstrates that. It seems very back and forth mostly around the topic that this takes more away from Revdis. Although the amount is somewhat negligible, the community is right that the precedent is further being set about just how flexible 100% Revenue Distribution actually is.

That being said there was enough support, and the amount is so low that this would be very helpful for marketing and so I approve the proposal. I do hope that eventually this instead utilises the marketing budget and we try to avoid pushing this precedent any further than we already have, at least until we see Revdis play out.

[signal swallow]

GFP-1 Training Grounds, Illuvial Staking and TrainingDex

I approve this proposal.

The community has been vocally supportive of this proposal since day 1. The new structure of GFP is a much better fit for this type of proposal and its good to see it return to voting.

[covert horizon]

[ICC] IIP-61 Fuel Allocation for Marketing Purposes

I approve this proposal.

Community sentiment:
For

• 45 upvotes.
• Fuel cannot be resold.
• Can introduce influencers into our games.

Against

• 6 downvotes.
• Need to be taken from marketing budget, not from revdis. 100% revdis was advertised.
• Already have Alliance Program, may lead to more in the future.
• More like profit distribution, instead of revenue distribution.

Personal notes:

• I support the Alliance Program.
• I support this proposal because it is only $25k.
• I disagree with taking away more from revdis. It can be a bad precedent to the famously advertised "100% revdis".
• Having said that, I am more concerned about low revenue than losing a few cents of revdis.
• I am concerned about the runway, as well.

[mystic pulsar]

[ICC] IIP-61 Fuel Allocation for Marketing Purposes

I approve this proposal.

I believe the feedback that it pulls from Revdis is valid, but I believe the potential costs of this marketing budget will be overshadowed by the potential gains of engaging new creators and communities. The benefit to having this written into governance is so that the Marketing team does not need to pass an IIP for every little thing used to market the DAO and game to newcomers. Marketing in this industry is often fast and loose, and deals can be made at the drop of a hat. It's in our best interest to not bog down the marketing process and allow for quick execution of favourable opportunities. With that said, let's also keep in mind this is "up to $25k" and not a fixed cost. It's likely the ceiling won't be hit regularly, at least that is my personal feeling as it relates to the realized cost.

GFP-1 Training Grounds, Illuvial Staking and TrainingDex

I approve this proposal.

I am glad to see this new structure of the GFP in action and believe it's a much more productive structure for specific game-related adjustments and requests.

[ICC] IIP-59 Illuvium Alliance (apologies, forgot to post my reasoning)

I approve this proposal.

Most of my rationale here has been said by my peers already, but just to reiterate that this system is intended to drive fresh capital into our ecosystem that otherwise would not be accounted for or expected. While I do expect there to be some overlap with funds that would have been spent already at full value, the carrot we are dangling for large creators to come in and get a very meaningful share of revenue in exchange for pushing us to new users is far and above more valuable. As with anything, we should keep a close eye on the metrics and re-assess if the program does not do what we are designing it to do.

[eager carbon]

IIP-61 Fuel Allocation for Marketing Purposes

I approve this proposal.

Community Sentiment: Positive

Marketing is of huge importance to increase our audience and transition from Airdrop farmers into a healthy ecosystem. The amount it takes away from revenue distribution will be paid back multifold by increasing the reach and overall success of Illuvium.

GFP-1 Training Grounds, Illuvial Staking, and TrainingDex

I approve this proposal.

Community Sentiment: Extremely positive

This has been a long time coming, and I am happy that we might see this great feature added to the game.

ICCP-17 Amendment to IIP-45-R - Land Revenue Share Distribution Method

I approve this proposal.

Community Sentiment: Very positive

The ICCP will ensure that landowners are rewarded fairly in any situation, and it is a welcome simplification for the payout process.

[mystic pulsar]

IIP-62 Streamlining the Onboarding Experience for New Illuvium Players

I approve this proposal.

I believe this is a reasonable QoL update and has majority community support. My personal thoughts are that the cinematic does add to the experience and helps newcomers care more about the IP but it makes sense for the cinematic to be "skippable" and for that ability to be clearer. Simply adding a "hold space to skip" function makes it easier for a user to experience Illuvium in the way they want to experience it.

Additionally, removing the mandatory Overworld tutorial prior to hitting the menu is a QoL enhancement that makes it more convenient for users coming to Illuvium specifically for Arena to get into the gameplay faster. While I enjoy the tutorial and think it's helpful for worldbuilding, it isn't necessarily a dealbreaker for a user to have the option to jump straight to Arena if that is the gameplay experience they care about. Making the tutorial a mandatory start to users that click into 'Overworld' and are seeking that gameplay experience makes more sense to me.

ICCP-18 Threshold Changes to IIP-22 Revenue Distribution

I approve this proposal.

This one is a big yes from me and seems to also have nearly unanimous approval from the community as well. The 500E threshold was established long ago, and in a very different market. In today's market, a much lower threshold means we have a more consistent and more linearly distributed buy pressure on the token. The added benefit of this lessening the likelihood of frontrunning is a big plus. Additionally, this lower thresshold will make it more attractive for spectators to get involved with our ecosystem and realize gains from our tokenomic model more quickly.

Bonus points for being able to do a distribution sooner after launch, huge marketing opportunity coming out of a successful launch. GGs!

[eager carbon]

ICCP-18 Threshold Changes to IIP-22 Revenue Distribution

I approve this proposal.

Community Sentiment: extremely positive

As JP above me has mentioned, the old ETH threshold is outdated, and this will have great positive success for people embedded in the project as well as reaching new audiences. It will reduce the risk of frontrunning and improve market stability with more frequent buyback cycles.

[green magnet]

GFP-1 Training Grounds, Illuvial Staking and TrainingDex

I approve this proposal.

The community has engaged strongly with the concepts here and it's been refined through multiple IIP proposals and weeks of discussions. The training, staking and market structures impacted make this an additive feature. As with all GFPs, Labs will need to perform the specific evaluations, final designs, and detailed integration points to make the concepts fit cleanly into the game. However, this is a good example of how the team can receive positive feedback on the game design from the community and build the game to be something more appealing than it already is. A victory for Web3!

[signal swallow]

ICCP-17 Amendment to IIP-45-R - Land Revenue Share Distribution Method

I approve this proposal.

The overwhelming support is reason enough to approve but its no secret that uncomplicating these systems is ideal. This proposal maintains a fair playing field and simply adjusts the technicality of how this problem is resolved.

[signal swallow]

IIP-62 Streamlining the Onboarding Experience for New Illuvium Players

I approve this proposal.

Although this is an obvious benefit to the Illuvium ecosystem as many future creator activations will be centered around TFT, I don't love the simplicity in this proposal specifically. I personally believe the Overworld cinematic intro should be mandatory, just not a blocker for people to play any of the Arena game modes. I don't doubt that Labs will keep this in mind and think about the best way to have the best of both worlds and the community is clearly in favour of this proposal 🙂

ICCP-18 Threshold Changes to IIP-22 Revenue Distribution

I approve this proposal.

I think the beauty of the DAO, especially as it pertains to token related topics is we can collectively change parameters at will. There is very little downside to reducing the threshold for revdis and the community clearly agrees on that front. The best part is if we ever need to raise it again, its only 1 proposal away from being accomplished.

IIP-63 Dynamic Survival Mode

I approve this proposal.

This proposal is a really difficult one, with a lot of mixed sentiment in the community. The reality of the situation is this milestone should never have existed to begin with, and dynamic waves don't change that, the autobattler is non-rng meaning an AI could definitely figure out the 'best move' every single wave. I don't love the idea of reverting something for players because of a mistake that they exploited, you could say, 'don't blame the player, blame the game'. However this specific problem goes beyond this concern where bots could easily abuse this to an insane level, meaning everyone, even those who beat this milestone fairly, will ultimately lose. Not reverting that would be a colossal mistake and so unfortunately, this proposal is the right path forward in my opinion.

[mystic pulsar]

IIP-63 Dynamic Survival Mode

I approve this proposal.

I share the same sentiment that Scoriox outlined above in terms of fairness and rectifying the situation. I will add that I believe Labs has the authority to correct exploits & bugs without an IIP, persuant to IIP-58-R. However, in situations where the imbalance is severe enough it could warrant a new IIP to address it. This IIP in particular feels like it is covering two separate issues. One being the exploit/bug, the other being what would typically be viewed as a GFP (in my opinion).

As it relates to the adjustment for dynamic waves, I'm in support of this personally and believe the majority of the community shares that sentiment. I have read the concerns voiced by those saying it is not a one-size-fits-all approach, but I think it is a step in the right direction. From a gameplay perspective, I think it is valuable for the experience to be different for everyone. I also shared on our ICC meeting this morning that I think the ability to "reroll" your survival stack x number of times per day would lean more into the replayability and create a mode that people can have fun with without restraint. Currently, it feels gated by the fact that it only refreshes daily and if you beat the wave or aren't having fun with that days wave, you're stuck waiting until the refresh.

In conclusion, I approved this proposal because I think it is a net benefit and addresses an important issue with the airdrop points & exploit/bug, as well as adds a QoL and replayability enhancement in dynamic survival waves. With that in mind, I would expect the IMC to review this IIP more closely for whether or not it's appropriate/needed in its current state or if Labs has the authority to correct the issues presented already, in which case this could be more appropriate resubmitted as a GFP.

[eager carbon]

IIP-62 Streamlining the Onboarding Experience for New Illuvium Players

I approve this proposal.

Community support: very positive

I like that players who come to play Arena only will be able to jump straight in. It makes sense. Personally, I feel like no gamer will ever register for a game, download it, start it up, see a tutorial for the open-world part of it, and then uninstall it. But definitely, the fewer hurdles, the better.

However, the cinematic is a must-see for everyone. It makes players fall in love with the IP, and we need that sentimental value to grow.

IIP-63 Dynamic Survival Mode

I approve this proposal.

Community Sentiment: Rather positive

When considering the community sentiment, we must note that multi-account farming facilities are grouping up to vote this down. This is positive for the core community and the project as a whole. Removing these points from players will likely give them a larger share of the airdrop rewards. It benefits both free-to-play and paying users by stopping multi-accounts from extracting value by farming this 1 million airdrop in 30 minutes.

One problem is that it includes the dynamic survival mode, which Labs is already working on. It makes little sense to push them for it and make them jump through extra hoops. It is essentially two different topics. Also, removing all the points punishes players, and I prefer reducing them.

This is a good thing for the community, so I upvoted it. Fast forward to the present, we have crafted a new proposal that is more straightforward and only tackles the issue of survival wave rewards being too high.
This 1 Million points reward is a potentially harmful mistake for players and the project and needs to be fixed one way or another. In the new proposal, we suggest Labs lower the points to ensure honest players still get some reward for their time spent.

[green magnet]

IIP-62 Streamlining the Onboarding Experience for New Illuvium Players

I approve this proposal.

It's a simple change that allows us to better direct players to the specific genre of games they are most interested in. Once players love the IP/brand, they will go back for the lore later.

IIP-61 Fuel Allocation for Marketing Purposes

I approve this proposal.

It does not make sense at this stage for Illuvium DAO to "buy back" fuel from the market to provide to influencers. The game ecosystem will live or die based on players and providing easy entry to influencers in a way that ensure the fuel can't be just sold for profit is one of the best ways to market our products.

ICCP-17 Amendment to IIP-45-R - Land Revenue Share Distribution Method

I approve this proposal.

Simplification of processes above features is the name of the game at this stage post launch. This is a clear change that keeps landowners whole and eases the admin/tech burden on the team.

[supple halo]

GFP-1 Training Grounds, Illuvial Staking, and TrainingDex

I approve this proposal.

This widely discussed and community-appreciated proposal has undergone various revisions and eventually led to the creation of the GFP proposal type. This allows us to pass it while ensuring Labs can properly integrate this overall positive feature with quick reactions and adaptations.

It is a great example of how GFPs enable the community to contribute to game design without the restrictive problems of IIPs.
A win for Decentralized Governance and Community based Game-Feedback!

IIP-61 Fuel Allocation for Marketing Purposes

I approve this proposal.

Giving influencers access to fuel allows them to create higher-quality and more engaging content, showcasing more of the Illuvium Universe and Economy. The proposal allows Labs, if needed, to allocate fuel directly instead of rebuying it from the marketplace. Given the arguably small monthly allocation for this purpose, it makes sense at the current state of Illuvium.

Illuvium Overworld and all related games need players to create both the supply and demand sides of the economy. Additionally, fuel cannot be resold or otherwise manipulated, so there is no market risk involved in providing it to influencers.

IIP-62 Streamlining the Onboarding Experience for New Illuvium Players

I approve this proposal.

Illuvium features interoperable games, but making it easier for new players to enter the game of their choice from the start is a positive step, especially if all the games are accessible from the same client.

After players are engaged with their preferred game mode (Gauntlet, Ascendant, or Leviathan), they can explore the cinematic, lore, and Overworld aspects to improve their teams, acquire cosmetics, or engage in the economy beyond the Arena Player perspective.

ICCP-17 Amendment to IIP-45-R - Land Revenue Share Distribution Method

I approve this proposal.

Changing from a buyback method to allocating the ETH owed to Landholders via airdrop based on in-game activities is a cleaner, fairer, and lower-risk approach. It also reduces the technical burden, especially during periods of high fuel demand when the DAO would otherwise buy back fuel at peak prices. Overall, this is a positive change to the previous system.

ICCP-18 Threshold Changes to IIP-22 Revenue Distribution

I approve this proposal.

There are various positives to lowering the threshold for more frequent buybacks. As the proposal outlines, this will help support the token’s price, provide more frequent returns to investors, minimize the risk of frontrunning by traders, and improve overall market stability due to more predictable and regular buybacks.

Outside of the outlined advantages, there is no direct downside to triggering buybacks more frequently, making this a strictly positive change.

[rain aurora]

[IMC] IIP-59 Illuvium Alliance Program

I approve this proposal.

This program will need to be monitored to ensure that it brings new customers into the ecosystem. There is a possibility that existing customers utilizing this program to support their favorite creators and influencers ends up being extractive from the DAO.

Regardless, the potential benefits of the program outweigh the risks. Referral programs have been successful for a wide variety of games, and create incentives for creators to promote our products.

[IMC] IIP-60 Gameplay Feature Proposal

I approve this proposal.

Gameplay Feature Proposals, or something comparable or equivalent, have been a structure I've wanted to see since early Gov V2. I'm happy to get something in place to provide clearer guidance to the community on how they can request features, while not hamstringing Labs to the specific wording and values used in pitching an idea.

[IMC] GFP-1 Training Grounds, Illuvial Staking and Training Dex

I approve this proposal.

The core ideas here are compelling, there is potential for additional economic integration between games, and overall I think the ideas put forward are worth exploring and potentially adding into our games.

[IMC] IIP-61 Fuel Allocation for Marketing Purposes

I approve this proposal.

We essentially have three options available to us.

1. Do not provide partners, influencers and guild with Fuel.
2. Buy Fuel for marketing from ourselves.
3. Provide Fuel for marketing for partners.

I don't believe options 1 or 2 make sense. We need to be mindful of runway, and on launch most Fuel will be produced directly by the DAO anyway. I believe this allocation isn't excessive, it won't ALL be used every month, and if used responsibly, it should result in more value driven to the DAO by allowing marketing partners to showcase our products to their audiences.

[IMC] ICCP-17 Amendment to IIP-45-R - Land Revenue Share Distribution Method

I approve this proposal.

This follows the same fundamental principle as the existing Fuel buybacks, but in a way that is more technically feasible for Illuvium Labs to accomplish. Distribution is still based on Fuel sales, which is equivalent to buyback mechanisms, and is likely less prone to abuse through stockpiling and targeted selling during buybacks. This also prevents the circular issue that exists when Fuel prices are at the top rail, where the DAO purchasing Fuel from the DAO is an endless loop where value cannot make it back to landowners.

[IMC] IIP-62 Streamlining the Onboarding Experience for New Illuvium Players

I approve this proposal.

It's a simple ask. Skippable cinematics and the Overworld tutorial existing only for that game mode. Makes sense and should be technically possible. I see no downsides to this proposal.

[IMC] ICCP-18 Threshold Changes to IIP-22 Revenue Distribution

I approve this proposal.

The original threshold of 500 ETH was set during a different time in the market, and it was always possible that value would have to change. Revdis occuring at a 150 ETH threshold doesn't fundamentally change any of the mechanisms, it just ensures we can have distributions occur more frequently. We still need these buybacks to occur in random amounts and at random times to mitigate frontrunning. Overall I'm in favour of the new threshold, as it is desirable to see revdis mechanisms at work.

[rain aurora]

[IMC] IIP-63 Dynamic Survival Mode

I decline this proposal.

There are 2 main reasons for my vote to decline.

1. Labs is already building dynamic survival mode, as part of a fix for the multi-accounting exploit. I think it's bad practice to frontrun a fix that is already in development with a proposal, or to require proposals to fix exploits. If anything, this portion of the proposal could be a GFP, and those proposals should be used for features NOT already being built by Labs. Using the GFP system would also result in this solution taking longer to implement, and this is time sensitive.

2. I believe a complete removal of the points for completing survival waves is heavy handed. Multi-account exploiters can be removed entirely, but I do think there will be more collateral damage from a complete removal than from an adjustment to the point values for survival wave completions.

My preference is a solution like ICCP-XX Airdrop Points Revision. This isn't a problem we can afford to ignore, but I am inclined to choose a more equitable solution, and leave fixes for exploits to Labs.

[covert horizon]

[ICC] GFP-1 Training Grounds, Illuvial Staking and TrainingDex

I approve this proposal. This is the same proposal as IIP-55 so I am giving the same rationale.

Community sentiment:
For

• 53 upvotes.
• Offer passive Illuvials leveling.
• Additional utility for IZ.
• Offer additional revenue to landholders.
• Potential fee revenue to the DAO.

Against

• 0 downvotes.
• I have not seen an argument against this proposal.

Personal notes:

• I believe in introducing more utilities to IZ.
• These days, games offer more convenience instead of hard grinding.
• The idea provides more elements and fuels sink.
• Passive leveling need to be much more costly than actively leveling the Illuvials.
• The Team need to work out details and balancing.

[ICC] ICCP-17 Amendment to IIP-45-R - Land Revenue Share Distribution Method

I approve this proposal.

Community sentiment:
For

• 65 upvotes.
• Simplify the land revenue distribution.

Against

• 1 downvotes.
• I have not seen an argument against this proposal.

Personal notes:

• This ICCP should amend both IIP-45-R (below ceiling buybacks) and IIP-39 (at or above ceiling weekly sales).
• I agree that the current system is too complicated. The buybacks and weekly sales calculation can be triggered alternatively within a short period of time if we have high fuel price volatility.

[ICC] IIP-62 Streamlining the Onboarding Experience for New Illuvium Players

I approve this proposal.

Community sentiment:
For

• 38 upvotes.
• Arena is the game, OW is the pack opening.
• Some players just want to play Arena.

Against

• 2 downvotes.
• I have not seen an argument against this proposal.

Personal notes:

• I personally want to skip all animation and tutorial.
• I agree that TFT players just want to play Arena.
• However, for me personally OW is the game and Arena is part of OW. I do want people to immerse in the lore, so we can have a stronger IP, instead of just a TFT-clone.

[ICC] ICCP-18 Threshold Changes to IIP-22 Revenue Distribution

I approve this proposal.

Community sentiment:
For

• 75 upvotes.
• Good for trading volume.

Against

• 0 downvotes.
• I have not seen an argument against this proposal.

Personal notes:

• I strongly agree with this proposal.
• The token need support.
• Can be a bullish catalyst for token appreciation.
• Lower threshold aligns with the daily revenue and current gas fee.

[ICC] IIP-63 Dynamic Survival Mode

I approve this proposal.

Community sentiment:
For

• 98 upvotes.
• Clearing Wave 40 should not give 1 million points as it can be copied.
• Multi accounts may dilute the airdrop.
• Disincentivize spending.

Against

• 42 downvotes.
• Dynamic system might not be fair.
• Completely removing points is unfair to genuine players.
• Should reduce the points not remove.
• Multiplier is more ideal.
• Watching a video is not an exploit.

Personal notes:

• This issue has been raised during the testnet.
• I personally stopped spending too because of this.
• I personally watched a video to clear Wave 40.
• The Team need to decide if this is a mistake or an exploit in relation to IIP-58-R.
• A mistake requires the points to be tallied and a sub-period to be created.
• An exploit does not require a sub-period and allow the points to be annulled.

[eager carbon]

ICCP-19 Airdrop Points Revision

Community Sentiment: very positive

As mentioned in the IIP-63 proposal that didn't pass, adjusting the 1 million Airdrop Points for Survival Wave 40, along with other milestones in this category, is beneficial for every player. This adjustment will align this achievement more closely with other F2P milestones that can be accomplished with a similar time investment.

[mystic pulsar]

ICCP-19 Airdrop Points Revision

I approve this proposal.

Splitting this off from IIP-63 is more appropriate imo, but I still think adjusting the airdrop points for survival is needed. As Paz said above, the reward for grinding survival should be more aligned with other free to play milestones. Lastly, pretty unanimous community support I have seen for this one.

[eager carbon]

IIP-64 Fair Disclosures for Land

Community Sentiment: very positive

The community is overwhelmingly supportive of this, and I have to agree. More transparency and a clear ruleset for all Illuvium Zero landowners is a great move. It will help land players optimize their production while also guaranteeing a smoother experience with fewer potential conflicts.

[mystic pulsar]

IIP-64 Fair Disclosures for Land

I approve this proposal.

This prop has overwhelming community support so it's a yes from me. Some pros/cons I see below ⬇️

Things I like:
I am a fan of improving communication between landowners & Labs. I believe it's important that landowners feel heard and adequately represented. Disclosing specifics that allow for landowners to maximize their output makes sense to me.

Things I just want to be careful about:
It's important to me that land not fall down the rabbit hole of being treated like equity in Illuvium Labs. In my view and as far as regulation is concerned, Land is not an investment, it is a product purchase. Land producing fuel and blueprints that are then usable in other games within Illuvium's ecosystem is what is important to me as a player. It does not feel appropriate for landowners to expect the same degree of transparency that an equity stakeholder in a company would have, or for these individuals to expect an investor-relations approach. With that in mind, the other thing I want to be careful about is what disclosures are deemed appropriate and practical to implement. It's important to me that Labs have the final say in where that line is drawn in order to protect trade secrets, defend gameplay, and ensure that this game remains a game. I will add that what does feel more appropriate to me in terms of min/maxing performance and optimizing plots is for third party content creators to pick up that torch and spread awareness, not for Labs to publish formal documentation on it.

With those considerations in place, this prop has my approval due to overwhelming community support and because I do believe more disclosure between landowners and Labs will be healthy for our ecosystem. I am sure the IMC & Labs will carefully review where the balancing occurs in keeping this game a game.

[frosty forge]

[IMC]

GFP-1 Training Grounds Proposal

I approve.

I have been in favor of this earlier version previously but was forced to reject it on the grounds that draft was too stringent and could restrict Labs. With the current guideline for GFPs the details provided serves as examples or guideline and allows Labs to still ideate the implementation of the proposal based on their capacity and technical expertise subject to the final confirmation of the DAO.

IIP-61 Fuel Allocation for Marketing Purposes

I approve.

This proposal is similar to the allocation of d1sks for marketing purposes before therefore there is already a precedent. Setting that aside, this proposal is net positive to the DAO, as this allows us to boost Illuvium's visibility and attract new players through influencers, partners, and guilds. This targeted marketing approach is designed to enhance player retention and engagement while ensuring that resources are directly contributing to the game's ecosystem growth.

ICCP-17 Amendment to IIP-45-R - Land Revenue Share Distribution Method

I approve.

This amendment benefits the DAO by streamlining the revenue distribution process and ensuring fair compensation to landowners based on actual Fuel sales. It mitigates the potential issue of supply-demand imbalances, promoting a more efficient and transparent system. We do away with an overcomplicated system for a simplified and streamlined method. Win-win for the DAO.

IIP-62 Streamlining the Onboarding Experience

I approve.

While I dont necessarily agree this needed a proposal, this is the beauty of our governance. We can directly influence the development of the game even if its just getting Labs to put a note on the screen to press "x" to skip the tutorial. This is definitely a quality of life improvement that benefits the DAO and new players.

ICCP-18 Threshold Changes to IIP-22 Revenue Distribution

As the author of this proposal, I approve.

IIP 22 was drafted during a different time and market conditions. There is a need to adjust the parameters to current market landscape. By lowering the threshold, the DAO can do frequent buybacks and distributions that will mitigate frontrunning and enable revdis mechansims to be more visible.

IIP-63 Dynamic Survival Mode

I reject.

I first gave my reasonings here: #1267866392057872466 message. To summarize, dynamic survival feature is actively being developed by Labs with or without a proposal. However, the reason why I rejected this is because of the retroactive wiping out of points. I have no issue for it to being done prospectively but it is not equitable to wipe everything out retroactively. I would recommend that the retroactive application would be to lower the earned points then change the airdrop mechanics as whole prospectively. This also means that there is a need to either create a subperiod and pause the airdrop in accordance with IIP-58-R.

Side note: its clear the airdrop mechanics was still raw when implemented but that doesnt mean that the airdrop was a failure. Labs and the DAO just needs to re-evaluate the whole system and implement something better that addresses all the current and underlaying issues. So my position on airdrop would be to pause things till we come up with a better system and this will need a collaborative effort between the DAO and Labs.

[signal swallow]

ICCP-19 Airdrop Points Revision

I approve this proposal.

The community was greatly in favour of this proposal and even though I have my reservations there is one line that allows me to easily approve this proposal. 'will be adjusted to values that align more closely with similar free-to-play milestones'. This line is very important and without stating exact parameters, dictates the criteria the DAO wishes Illuvium Labs to meet in regards to this retroactive adjustment of airdrop points. For this reason I think the proposal is well written and correctly gets the right message across to both the community, Labs and the DAO.

IIP-64 Fair Disclosures for Land

I approve this proposal.

I can't think of a single game that doesn't have every little detail about it disclosed and placed on several wiki sites. Every Supercell mobile game, League of Legends champion stats, and every Dark Souls game and individual crafting item location is on a website the day of its launch. I understand the teams concerns regarding mystery being a part of its fun, but it hasn't stopped the fun in every single top game ever made and so leaving out the information in this case doesn't seem special but quite the opposite. Like the community has said, money is on the line in this case which gives all the more reason to provide these details and to align with their sentiment I approve this proposal.

[supple halo]

[IMC] IIP-63 Dynamic Survival Mode

I decline this proposal.

The proposal has two parts: the introduction of a new gameplay feature and the removal of all Airdrop Points from the survival game mode.

The introduction of new gameplay features should be done with GFPs, which is why this form of proposal specifically for gameplay features was introduced.

Furthermore, Labs is already working on a dynamic queue for the survival game mode. Using proposals for features that are already in development seems like bad practice and would delay their release, with little to no benefit.

Regarding the second part, which involves retroactively removing all points from everyone who played survival mode: the most concerning issue with the points is multi-account exploiting, which can be addressed separately as it involves exploiting an economic system and is trackable, so those account´s airdrop points can get removed without the need of an IIP.

I believe it isn’t fair or equitable to remove points from every single player because the task was effectively too easy and rewarded too many points. This could cause more negative consequences than other options, such as adjusting the amount of points given.

[eager carbon]

IIP-65 Emote D1sks, Cosmetics, and Fuel Crate Marketing Budget

I approve this proposal.

Community Sentiment: Positive

I think this is a great move forward. More events, more marketing, more players. I can't wait to have regular events and tournaments with prizes for the community. This is a big win for the DAO.

[covert horizon]

[ICC] ICCP-19 Airdrop Points Revision

I approve this proposal.

Community sentiment:
For

• 55 upvotes.
• Should not completely remove the points from Survival milestones

Against

• 0 downvotes.
• Unclear how much points should be given

Personal notes:

• I support this proposal as I supported IIP-63
• Team may still give zero points or very low points to the Survival milestones
• It is still unclear if Survival milestones was an exploit or a mistake by the team
• If it was a mistake, IIP-58-R requires a subperiod to be created, unless IIP-58-R was amended.
• This proposal does not address if a subperiod will be created or not

[ICC] IIP-64 Fair Disclosures for Land

I approve this proposal.

Community sentiment:
For

• 35 upvotes.
• The community is asking about the data often
• Landowners should know the info

Against

• 0 downvotes.
• The scope of the proposal might be too wide

Personal notes:

• IZ is unique because it is a income generating asset and a game.
• I agree that the Landowners who own the asset should get better information to maximize their output.
• However, too much information could take away the fun from the game.

[deep tendon]

[ICC] IIP-59 Illuvium Alliance Program
I approve this proposal.
-This is important to bring in new creators making content around Illuvium and get those larger creators to bring in some of their current audience

IIP-61 Fuel Allocation for Marketing Purposes
I approve this proposal.
-Getting fuel in the hands of those who may not be playing the game yet is a good way to get them involved and a % will hopefully become hooked and a paying customer.

GFP-1 Training Grounds, Illuvial Staking and Training Dex
I approve this proposal.
-Great idea to increase the utility of land

IIP-62 Streamlining the Onboarding Experience for New Illuvium Players
I approve this proposal.
-Not all perspective players care to be forced into watching the lore/tutorial. Get them into the game as quickly as possible is good idea.

ICCP-18 Threshold Changes to IIP-22 Revenue Distribution
I approve this proposal.
-The community has been waiting long enough for RevDis. lowering the threshold from 500 to 150 ETH will trigger that much sooner.

ICCP-17 Amendment to IIP-45-R - Land Revenue Share Distribution Method
I approve this proposal.
-Although I think the pervious proposal has a system that could work, I feel this could work as well and makes it easier to understand from the player end

IIP-63 Dynamic Survival Mode
I approve this proposal.

ICCP-19 Airdrop Points Revision
I approve this proposal.
-Airdrop points should be fair and balanced for everyone

IIP-64 Fair Disclosures for Land
I approve this proposal.
-Although I think this could be a slipperily slope that could lead to requests from other parts of the game, land is a big investment and more details should be available to the players

IIP-65 Emote D1sks, Cosmetics, and Fuel Crate Marketing Budget
I approve this proposal.
-Marketing is always a plus in the early stages of an IP

In addition to these notes I have approved because the community has shown clear support of them. As a community council member most often I will do so.

[mystic pulsar]

IIP-65 Emote D1sks, Cosmetics, and Fuel Crate Marketing Budget

I approve this proposal.

Easy yes from me on this one. Full community support and I think it's a wise business decision to market the quality of our products for player acquisition. GGs!

[signal swallow]

IIP-65 Emote D1sks, Cosmetics and Fuel Crate Marketing Budget

I approve this proposal.

The only negative feedback from the community I have seen surrounding this proposal is another further item to take away from revenue distribution. Currently the team is already distributing prizes out of their own pocket in the form of ILV and these NFTs would further enhance the experience for existing and new players of Illuvium. It makes sense to upgrade the existing systems in this way and the community seems to be highly positive about this adjustment.

[green magnet]

For the below two proposals I am having wallet issues while traveling so unable to vote on-chain. I have asked Rich to register my vote for IIP-64 here as it is currently a deciding vote (2/2 split).

[IMC] ICCP-19 Airdrop Points Revision

I approve this proposal.

The improperly weighted airdrop points values for these Survival tasks are clearly out of alignment with the rest of the airdrop details. Immediate actions to rectify the situation are necessary as a combination of both exploits (addressable by Labs directly) and a structurally broken incentive system risk massive loss in goodwill from the most active player base, particularly our paying players.

[IMC] IIP-64 Fair Disclosures for Land

I reject this proposal.

Illuvium Zero is a game. Yes, it is a game that returns fuel, which has value. Yes, it is a game that is part of the broader intra-game economy of Illuvium. Yes, it is a game that many players are hoping to purchase land plots that have a positive return on the amount of fuel derived over time.

No, it is not a security. This IIP requires disclosure rules that fundamentally misunderstand the type of product Illuvium Zero land plots are and must be outright rejected. I have no problem with additional patch notes being released (already in plan from Illuvium Labs). But players who want to do better at generating additional fuel should take the appropriate path - getting better at the game. With a variety of creators generating content, active discussions in Discord, and a simple gameplay loop including the ability to easily progress and modify the layout on land plots, Zero is a VERY accessible game to improve at by putting in some effort.

[supple halo]

[IMC] ICCP-19 Airdrop Points Revision

I approve this proposal.

It is unfortunate that during the preseason, it did not become apparent how easy the Wave 40 Milestone could be or how frequently strong enough teams and weak enough enemy waves would align. Those who completed it in the preseason couldn’t necessarily replicate it with 100% accuracy, and it took a considerable amount of time to solve. This would have made sharing recordings of these completions on the same day less impactful and carried a higher risk of investing time without results.

To maintain the integrity of the Airdrop Incentive System, retroactively adjusting these milestones to better align with other existing options is necessary.

[IMC] IIP-64 Fair Disclosures for Land

I reject this proposal.

I sympathize with the idea of providing detailed patch notes, a wiki, glossary, or similar resources to outline information for players that they could acquire during regular gameplay. This would be standard procedure for games. However, this proposal does not ask for these resources; instead, it seeks to treat Illuvium Zero, which is a game, more like a security.

A feature of web3 games is ownership, which allows for trading and the possibility of gaining more of a certain currency or assets of the player's choosing. This doesn’t change the fact that these are still games and should be treated as such, not as securities or similar financial instruments.

I voted to decline rather than suggest revisions, as previous discussions with the sponsor made it clear he wasn’t interested in the patch notes/wiki/glossary option.

[green magnet]

IIP-65 Emote D1sks, Cosmetics and Fuel Crate Marketing Budget

I approve this proposal.

This is a proven method of onboarding new players. The only real downside is that it pulls some from from revdis. Continuing to monitor cost of user acquisition vs. lifetime spend is critical to ensure these campaigns are value-added. Without executing on them, testing, and validating the results we have no way of identifying which UA strategies are optimal. Aside from ongoing adjustments to the game, this is probably the most critical type of activity happening as we hone in on the optimal ways to onboard players.

[frosty forge]

[IMC]

IIP-64 Fair Disclosures for Land

I request for revisions for this proposal.

I understand that there is a need for Labs to have a medium within which it can provide a database for all its games and game modes. Players should have access to base knowledge of the game but not necessarily need to know all facets including 'tips and tricks'. Just enough information that is and should be readily available when you play the game. In the lines of Zero, base information on the each building, its cost per level, output, build time etc are all available as you play the game but having a central database to go back to for planning is ideal to have.

However, Id like to point out that Labs has a long laundry list of priorities that they need to work on and having to build a dedicated page on the site or draft a long blog with corresponding graphics takes away resources and time. It would actually be more beneficial to both labs and dao if this information can be shared to third parties through a json, csv, or api. (Full disclosure as I am a cofounder for one of such sites). Sites such as Illuvihub, Master, or Illuvidata already has this database albeit outdated. With a simple json or api these sites can quickly update their database to which is made available to the public faster and with no added cost to Labs or the DAO.

So the revisions I would like to see is to trim the fat of the proposal as they should be subject of separate proposals and focus on getting Labs to share the database for its game to the public. If Labs believes patch notes/blogs is best then so be it. Whats important is that there is information out there already thats readily available.

On the topic of the other asks in the proposal, I suggest to the proponent that these be tackled separately. Here are some thoughts:

Land holder Sponsor - I would see a version of this representation under ICC
Fair Disclosure Standards - This is basically the database I spoke about and APIs are the best way imo. Kieran has already said theyre working on APIs. What Id like to point out is this is a game and its understandable that not all information should be disclosed but minimum the base information
Regular Reporting - This is basically patch notes which Labs is already doing and once API is implemented should be a non-issue as well

ICCP-19 Airdrop Points Revision

I approve this proposal

This is a better, more robust, and equitable approach to the current issue on Survival Milestones. It addresses not only the 40 milestone but also the 20 and 30 and doesnt wipe all the points/effort made by the players in Season 1. However, I see this as a band-aid solution still as the issue of mutli-accounting isnt necessarily addressed. The underlying issue is that airdrop mechanics/milestones needs to be overhauled. Thankfully, this is a high priority for Labs and they are looking into this already.

Side note: If the airdrop mechanics/milestones are not addressed before Season 2 then I would call for a pause or delay season 2 until such time that the issues and gaps of airdrop be solved.

IIP-65 Emote D1sks, Cosmetics and Fuel Crate Marketing Budget

I approve this proposal

On the onset, this looks like it takes away more from RevDis. However, the amount being allotted can be small compared to potential acquisition and retention of players that will enter our ecosystem. In the same vein, council will closely monitor the cost-benefit ratio of this initiative closely. The DAO through the council can cancel or hold the budget if it comes to the conclusion that it is net-negative or is not achieving the goals that was intended.

I would probably add to this proposal that there should be a month-on-month report on the spend per SKU (disks, cosmetics, Fuel etc) and the results of the in-game events. We need this data to help shape and support future sanctioned in-game events.

[covert horizon]

[ICC] IIP-65 Emote D1sks, Cosmetics, and Fuel Crate Marketing Budget

I approve this proposal.

Community sentiment:
For

• 44 upvotes.
• The rewards are within the economy loop
• Positive data from past events.
  Against
• 0 downvotes.
• I have not seen an argument against it

Personal notes:

• I support this proposal like I supported IIP-63 and IIP-19
• I am currently more concerned about generating interest than foregoing some revdis

[mystic pulsar]

[ICC] ICCP-20 Include In-App purchases in calculations for rewards for the Alliance Program

I approve this proposal.

It makes sense to include in-app purchases so that creators are incentivized to create content around Zero as well as the other games. The main complication with including this revenue is that the app stores take a significant amount of capital from transactions, and there are charge-backs to worry about. I support tasking Labs with determining what % of in-app purchases can be withheld to account for these fees and risk variables, and then compensate creators out of the leftover percentage as normal.

[eager carbon]

[ICC] ICCP-20: Include In-App Purchases in Calculations for Rewards in the Alliance Program

I approve this proposal.

Community Sentiment: Positive

I am strongly in favor. I see no reason why in-app purchases shouldn't be included. While I understand that this might not be a high priority at the moment due to the potential extra workload, it should definitely be considered in the long term. The rationale behind the proposal is clear to me:

Creators should be incentivized to create content and promote all aspects and games within the Illuvium ecosystem. Currently, there is no incentive for Illuvium ZERO. This will become increasingly important if there is a push for free-to-play gamers to engage with ZERO or if other titles are ported to mobile platforms that make use of in-app purchases.

[signal swallow]

[ICC] ICCP-20: Include In-App Purchases in Calculations for Rewards in the Alliance Program

I approve this proposal.

Although I would have liked to see more discussion from the community surrounding this topic, its clear they feel this is a somewhat obvious progression for the Alliance Program. Given it is already being tracked is nice to know, but I agree the team shouldn't rush to achieve an automated system, or even completely implement this until they have the chance to do so.

[covert horizon]

[ICC] ICCP-20 Include In-App purchases in calculations for rewards for the Alliance Program

I approve this proposal.

Community sentiment:
For

• 32 upvotes.
• In app purchases are already being tracked.

Against

• 0 downvotes.
• Need to consider app store fee.
• Need extensive dev work fully automated the system.

Personal notes:

• Some content creators might focus on IZ.
• Potential huge market for IZ as a mobile game.
• Team need to develop the automated system.
• Need distribution mechanism, for example, when and how to convert fiat to ETH.

[green magnet]

[IMC] ICCP-20: Include In-App Purchases in Calculations for Rewards in the Alliance Program

I submit this proposal for revisions.

I have asked for more feedback from the team to evaluate what the potential numbers and impact are for this change. Given that many of the Zero land plots are moving toward final states, the in-app purchases may start slowing down for a while and we don’t have any financial estimates at this time on what this change would mean for the DAO and affiliates. I have some doubts that affiliate orgs will meaningfully increase the revenue generated through in-app purchases in Zero without some major gameplay adjustments or growth of F2P content. If the affiliate program is just sending additional revenue to affiliates but not resulting in net increase to the DAO, I do not support the change and we need some actual data to make that evaluation.

[frosty forge]

[IMC] ICCP-20: Include In-App Purchases in Calculations for Rewards in the Alliance Program

I requested revisions.

IMC needed more time to make an informed decision for this proposal. More data and inputs were requested from Labs before we can decide on this. Two concerns here are 1) how does app/play store cut affect the net revenue; and 2) how this will affect priorities in dev work and bandwidth.

[eager carbon]

GCCP-1 Esports Committee

I approve this proposal.

Community Sentiment: Very Positive

Personal Thoughts: Including an Esports Committee is a great idea, given that Esports is a major pillar of Illuvium. With Viper being one of the few community members with in-depth Esports knowledge and not being elected onto the IMC, we need to fill this gap in another way. The committee is a great way to achieve this.

IIP-66 Remove the Bonus Fuel System

I approve this proposal.

Community Sentiment: Positive

Personal Thoughts: In my opinion, the current Bonus Fuel system was only a temporary measure until the order book system, as described in this proposal, was ready. If that is not the case, it should be changed as outlined by this proposal. This will enhance the user experience from both a buyer's and a seller's perspective.

[tawdry ledge]

GCCP-1: Esports Committee

I support this proposal.

Esports has always been a key goal within the Illuvium ecosystem, from large-scale multimillion-dollar tournaments to the Tier 5 Stadium plots. Having committee members with experience in managing and organizing in the esports scene could add significant value.

While there are concerns about too many voices influencing the Council, committee members would serve as advisors only and can remain uninvolved if the Council chooses. Ultimately, it’s the Council’s responsibility to vote in the best interest of the DAO.

IIP-66: Removal of the Bonus Fuel System

I support removing the bonus fuel system.

Since its introduction, the bonus fuel system has caused confusion and can even be seen as potentially unfair, with certain payment methods not receiving the same bonuses—without prior notification or explanation. The team has acknowledged this issue and is currently working on a much-needed overhaul of the fuel exchange system.

[hoary widget]

GCCP-1 Esports Committee

I approve this proposal

Since this Committee will be integrated to the current slate of Committees, I view this as an overall benefit. Members of this newly formed committee have a vested interest in the project’s success. There is widespread community support for the notion that Esports and a competitive scene are crucial for long-term success. Given that this Committee will operate on a voluntary basis (not financially remunerated), there is no cost to the DAO to have access on an as-needed basis to these experts in regards to E-sports.

I also acknowledge that incorporating this Committee’s responsibilities into the existing "Game Design Committee" could be a viable alternative option.

This will be on the radar for ICC as we continue to evaluate ways we can enhance the governance processes and structure.

=====================

IIP-66 - Remove the Bonus Fuel System

I approve this proposal

There are clear shortcomings with the current system - mainly around confusion associated with the "bonus fuel".

Introducing an Order Book system could enhance pricing transparency and market efficiency, benefiting fuel traders on both the buying and selling side. Illuvium Labs will need to be conscientious of the interface and should heavily consider a "basic view" and "advance view" when it comes to buying fuel. This is to accommodate both the casual users (easier onboarding of new players & gamers) and advanced traders who are used to how exchanges function.

Personal Opinion: Since the Team has plans to make much needed improvements to the current fuel system, I feel we could have waited a little longer to test the updates the Team has planned/been working on. See the update shared by Chris: #1279848507125268521 message

=====================

(NOTE: I will be out of office for the next 10 days on a pre-planned vacation with limited access to my devices)

[livid spear]

GCCP-1 Esports Committee

I approve this proposal

As was mentioned in the Town Hall last night, Illuvium aims to push a number of E-sports related competitions to boost player acquisition and use airdrop rewards more effectively. To pull this off as effectively as possible, I agree with the community that having a number of experts in the E-sports field supporting IMC decisions could be a large boon to the project. This new committee from my perspective would, however, be a pilot group that could be removed if it turns out to be unwieldy.
Unwieldy for the following reason: I could see game design having a major impact on how E-sports would be approached. Because of this, the two committees may give feedback that is reliant on the feedback of the other committee. Going into this nine month epoch where leaderboards will get implemented, we should monitor the situation and be prepared to make changes if issues in internal communication take place.

[ICC] IIP-66 - Remove the Bonus Fuel System

I Decline this proposal

This proposal was written with the intent to create an orderbook system for exchanging fuel on the buyer-side while removing the bonus fuel system in particular. While this proposal aims to better the exchange’s ease of use, however, it also mentions a number of details that may limit the team’s movements while creating that better exchange version.

The team has mentioned to be working on an orderbook system. They, however, have not specified that it would have a "minimum order size” or a full “fuel price history”. If this proposal was approved as is, I fear we would put unnecessary shackles on the development of the updated fuel exchange as the team would have to abide by the suggestions. I think rewording the document would be in the best interest of the DAO and hope the IMC will look into this with the proposal’s sponsor.

With this being our second week on the ICC, we have yet to help the community in writing the IIP’s. My decision to decline the proposal this time is an exception to the rule, as I hope to help write future IIP’s that target specific aspects, or be broad enough not to obstruct the team’s development.

[hardy steppe]

GCCP-1 Esports Committee

I approve this proposal

Seems like a good idea

IIP-66 - Remove the Bonus Fuel System

I approve this proposal

Nobody likes Vetemor's Bonus fuel idea.

[covert horizon]

[IMC] GCCP-1 E-Sports Committee

I approved this proposal.

1. I believe ILV need guidance from web2 experts to start developing its E-sports scene.
   The existing Game Design Committee should focus on the design of the four games and their interconnectivity,
   while the E-sports Committee should focus on the competitive structure.

2. The E-sports Committee can help us to:
   a. Establishing Tournament formats and rulesets.
   b. Host small grassroots tournaments.
   c. Structure and run professional leagues.
   d. Design prize pools.
   e. Organize pro teams.
   f. Organize sponsors, ads, product placement, licensing.
   g. Organize streamers, caster, match analysts, competition "story/drama".
   h. Strategize future growth.

3. From the points I mentioned above, we need guidance from people who are active or had extensive experience running these events, instead of people who are just participating in competitive scene. There is a huge difference between hosting and participating.

[IMC] IIP-66 Remove the Bonus Fuel System

I voted for revision.

1. I agree that the bonus fuel system should be replaced.
   I am personally annoyed with the bonus system. For example, I just need 500 Hyperion to complete a daily task and I had to either do a mental calculation or I had to take out the calculator.

2. I agree that a minimum order size is needed to eliminate rounding loss.

3. The proposal is asking for the introduction of an order book. The Fuel Exchange (FEX) is already operating under an order book system, however it is not displaying the UI like a CEX. The FEX ledger is definitely insufficient for trading purposes and it does not allow export to csv.

4. I agree that the FEX is lacking some needed features, such as bid limit order, ask market order, price chart and depth.

5. Market confusion: The bonus fuel is displayed on the Fuel Exchange (FEX) before buyers make the purchase.
   Buyers know how much fuel they are getting from the transaction. I am suggesting the sponsor to revise this observation.

6. User Experience: I do not agree that a comprehensive order book UI is more user-friendly and be less confusing, especially for non-crypto native.

7. Market Stability: I somewhat agree that a more comprehensive order book system may provide more price stability. Buyers and sellers can see the depth of the orders and act accordingly. However, seeing lack of bid or excessive ask (sell wall) may also influence buyers and sellers to behave negatively.

8. Suggesting the sponsor to propose Lite Mode as the default interface for newcomers, and Pro Mode for seasoned players.

9. Note: the team is already working on improvements #1279848507125268521 message

[signal swallow]

[IMC] GCCP-1 E-Sports Committee

I vote for revisions.

Illuvium's Governance system already has components in place to accomodate individuals with Esports expertise. They could be added to committees for either Gaming or Marketing. Now I can understand that maybe this hasn't happened as of yet, but I would have liked to see a proposal that either made a new requirement for one or both of these committees, or added additional slots to these committees to accomodate the expertise required. Although I have no doubts we will be able to find several individuals with Esports backgrounds, this doesn't feel like the most agile path moving forwards.

Ultimately this is the right initiative, I am just not sure adding an entirely new committee is the right way to execute the vision.

[IMC] IIP-66 Remove the Bonus Fuel System

I vote for revisions.

To be clear, the removal of bonus fuel, and adding the 20 fuel minimum sell/buy is 100% fine. Where my concerns lie is with the restriction to Labs in terms of the order book on the buyers side. Aaron stated in the discussion that he doesn't believe this can be executed quickly and I'd like to leave this specificity out of the proposal to be completed later on at Labs' discretion.

I am not certain buyers placing limit orders is fundamental to the effectiveness of the fuel exchange or improves the experience in a meaningful way for 90% of users, simply because you cannot play the market. Even if you were to limit buy Solon for cheap, its less powerful since you can't then sell Solon or send it to others later on. Although I think those features have merit in Illuvium's future, they simply don't justify the potential slowdown on developing this feature in the short term.

[eager carbon]

GFP-2: Enable Beyond Disk Fragments in Overworld

I approve of this proposal.

Community Sentiment: Extremely Positive: 50 Upvotes, 1 Downvote

I think it's great to bring some interoperability to Beyond. Promoting Beyond and giving extra value to Overworld players outside of their OW experience is beneficial for both games and a smart marketing move, in my opinion.

[tawdry ledge]

GFP - 2: Enable Beyond Disk Fragments in Overworld

I approve this proposal

As long as Ergon energy cost is associated with collection of Shards to maintain the value of the illuvials and other NFTs, this is a great addition to the interoperability to the IP.

I'm not sure what the best implementation will be to introduce Beyond mechanics into the overworld but since it is an GFP the team can figure out what the best use of dev resources will be for this proposal. Happy to see the games become further connected.

[hoary widget]

GFP - 2: Enable Beyond Disk Fragments in Overworld

** I approve this proposal **

(Rationale to be shared this weekend when I am back from vacation - I will __ Edit __ this message and share further thoughts & reasonings)

EDIT:
This proposal brings forth a new mechanic/feature that could encourage interoperability between the Overworld and Beyond. Features like this are great ideas to have passed along for future developments - IBGs is the name of the game!

There will need to be further research into the best way to implement this, and excited to see the GDD proposed by Labs.

More information on GFPs for anyone interested: IIP-60
https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1260149125371006986

[hardy steppe]

GFP -2: Enable Beyond Disk Fragments in Overworld

• I approve this proposal *

I love this idea and the community loves this idea so its a easy vote. Thanks Alexa for sharing your ideas to help make Illuvium the best game possible!

[signal swallow]

GFP-2 Enable Beyond Disk Fragments in Overworld

I approve this proposal

The vision isn't quite realised yet but I think we will all look back in 12 months time and unanimously agree that the promise of interoperability is one of the greatest features Illuvium has to offer. Not only is it unique to Blockchain Gaming but Illuvium designs all its systems with this in mind, and it makes the entire ecosystem more amazing as a result.

This proposal is fantastic on its own, but better still, it makes me really wonder what else is possible, it starts as D1sk Fragments, then it moves to tiny fuel crates, unique items that relate to Illuvium Zero, and maybe even components to build a space ship and get off world. Content is king in all video games, and adding new items to find and interact with in the Overworld is a net positive.

Like others have said, as long as it required Ergon energy to consume, its also a net positive for the Illuvium economy.

[livid spear]

[ICC] GFP - 2: Enable Beyond Disk Fragments in Overworld

I approve this proposal.

It increases interoperability between the games, which is exactly what Illuvium stands for. So of course a big yes from me. 👍
(A bit late as I didn't expect IMC vote to go live with 36 hours left on the ICC snapshot vote 😅 )

[covert horizon]

[IMC] GFP-2 Enable Beyond Disk Fragments in Overworld

I approved this proposal.

1. I like the idea of adding more content in OW, spesifically gacha loot. There was an idea by @icy tulip , titled "Chest Looting System", in May, which I liked too.

2. This proposal is a good time-limited cross-promotion event between OW and Beyond.

3. I see "cache" as a bonus system in OW. Therefore,
   opening the cache should not consume ergon energy and it may be counted toward the stretch goals (treated the same as buying d1sk).

4. The most important task for Labs is to calculate the value of "cache" as a bonus system. Calculated based on the percentage of the bonus to the cost of running an OW run and the normal distribution of fragments as indicated in the proposal. For example, the bonus is 1% or 5% of OW run cost.

5. This "cache" system can be used for more time-limited promotions, for example "Weekend Bonanza: Discover Fuels in hidden caches."
   Big Time does many time-limited promo events to entice players to do runs.

[eager carbon]

IIP-67 Ensuring Fair leaderboard rewards for Illuvium Beyond

I approve of this proposal.

Community Sentiment: Positive: 25 Upvotes, 3 Downvote

Makes sense in my opinion to ensure Beyond Investors and Players get their missed rewards.

"These steps provide the missed rewards to the previous leaderboard rankers who would otherwise have to unfairly compete over them with new investors from wave 3."
I think this is less of a concern as new investors will have a very hard time catching up to the previous ones.

[hardy steppe]

IIP-67 Ensuring Fair leaderboard rewards for Illuvium Beyond

I approve of this proposal.

The community's strong support for this proposal aligns with my stance, so I approve. 👍

[livid spear]

[ICC] IIP-67 Ensuring Fair leaderboard rewards for Illuvium Beyond

I approve this proposal

I personally remain mellow in my position of not requiring payouts prior to the start of wave 3. I understand that it would feel like you could be cheated out of your rewards, but this would mean that your competitors would have to buy and create an album stronger than yours during the first weeks of Wave 3.
What this means is that either they buy more d1sks than you or get luckier if they are ranked slightly below you, OR they start fresh during this wave and have to buy up an album from wave 1** and** 2. In the latter case, it would bring a lot of volume to the marketplace of Beyond and potentially allow us to share the assets that we have been hoarding. I personally would love to see these Rhamphyres that have been sitting in their holder's wallets for the past year find new owners. Isn't that the fun of card collecting? Helping others collect and sharing joys with them to finish an album?

Anyways, I think this IIP was mainly pushed by the leaderboard holders to ensure they get those 4 ILV for top 100, or 100 ILV for the number 1. That's roughly 150-4K$ between ranks. While I may be exaggerating the returns on volume, the IMC may be able to ask the data analyst for numbers based on previous 2x or 3x reward waves; It would be a tradeoff between giving them this through rewards, or allowing them the opportunity to sell their spare assets on the market. I'm sure that if the data analyst shows significant correlation between reward multiplication and uptick of collectors, that the leaderboard holders would understand and respect either outcome.
All you would need is proper communication on the data and expected values/returns/activity. On top of that I would issue a promise to make up for issues if the results during wave 3 do not align with the previous expected data values.

[hoary widget]

IIP-67 Ensuring Fair leaderboard rewards for Illuvium Beyond

I approve this proposal

I was conflicted on whether passing this was the best decision or not. Sentiment was reached 👍 with minimal opposition 👎 on this proposal. The main supporters would benefit from this being approved (many within the top 100 leaderboards). However, the pause in rewards was only supposed to be temporary with the intent to continue them after migrating assets (and secondary wallet support). It seems fair to have rewards restarted prior to Wave 3 for those who held their ranking, since it was never communicated these would be canceled altogether.

I would like it stated that had there been a decision & an announcement that the leaderboard rewards would be stopped or changed, then I would have most likely rejected this proposal.

Note: I have advocated in the past that "legacy" leaderboards should be revised. We want new players coming into new waves of Beyond and have a chance to earn leaderboard rewards, even if that is by having "wave-specific" leaderboards.

[signal swallow]

IIP-67 Ensuring Fair leaderboard rewards for Illuvium Beyond

I approve this Proposal

I thought long and hard about this proposal and what would be best. On the first hand I don't think delaying Wave 3 is the answer since the date has been announced. And the new leaderboards system should theoretically allow this proposal and Wave 3 to coexist. But ultimately I like how this only requests a 'snapshot' to be taken before the launch of Wave 3. With that in mind, the team should have Secondary Wallets in with plenty of time before Wave 3 making this a no brainer to keep things on track.

[frosty forge]

[IMC]

GCCP-1 Esports Committee

Revisions needed. I am not opposed to having committee members who have expertise in esports, organizing esports or events. However, I do not see a need to have its separate committee when they can be brought in under Game or Marketing committee. We risk a precedent where we create more and more niche committees which makes the whole system unwieldly.

IIP-66 Remove the Bonus Fuel System

Revisions Needed. I had a discussion with Filow in the thread and landed that removing the bonus system is the ideal goal but the additional requirements and features in the policy seems to handcuff labs. If the intention was just to remove the bonus system then let the proposal reflect that without the additional riders. Let Labs cook under the premise that the bonus fuel system has to go.

GFP-2 Enable Beyond Disk Fragments in OW

I approve. This is a good idea to make beyond more relevant into the whole ecosystem of Illuvium. Multiple touchpoints makes for a stronger case of interoperability. However, I do note that this may be low on the priority for Labs to develop and I would strongly oppose we priotize this before we fix the game-breaking bugs and issues. This is a want not a need.

IIP-67 Ensuring Fair Leaderboard Rewards for Illuvium Beyond

I reject this proposal

I may have a different take on Leaderboard rewards than with those participating in the ecosystem. The intention of Leaderboard rewards (at least to me) has always been to incentivize purchase to maintain receiving the rewards. Since there was no product it doesnt make sense to keep paying out rewards when the DAO is not getting any value back from it. Additionally, participants were enjoying several weeks of free (no product) rewards for quite sometime when Wave 3 was in limbo.

[covert horizon]

[IMC] IP-67 Ensuring Fair leaderboard rewards for Illuvium Beyond

I approved this proposal.

1. There has not been an announcement in the #📣〕announcements that says the Beyond Leaderboard is paused. Technically this should be a "delay", instead of a "pause".

2. The only info from the team regarding a pause is a pinned message by @real thorn here #🎮〕illuvium-beyond message

3. Looking at the message, the reason for this pause was to let people to migrate their collections and the pause would be for "a few weeks".
   a. Secondary wallet support for Beyond assets has not been implemented.
   b. My definition of "a few weeks" is not ~16 weeks, dating from 24th of July to 21th of November. The total amount of ILV is about 1600.

4. Looking at Rich's message further, he posted "Pause and double rewards once we restart. for the duration of the pauise"
   If we are to treat chat as an announcement, therefore we need to give out 3200 ILV token (2 x 1600). If we want to "ensure fair leaderboard rewards" then 3200 ILV token need to be given to those who are affected by the delay. I personally believe this should have nothing to do with Wave 3.

5. I agree that secondary wallet support for Beyond assets need to go live before the restart of Beyond Leaderboard.

6. I disagree to compensate the players who are affected by this delay with 3x rewards in Wave 3, as per announcement here #📣〕announcements message
   I believe there should be a complete separation between those who are affected by the delay and Wave 3 as mentioned by this IIP.

[tawdry ledge]

[ICC] IIP-67 Ensuring Fair leaderboard rewards for Illuvium Beyond

I approved this proposal.

This was a situation where clarity was needed. Some beyond players had expectations that holding or buying more illuvitars would be generating some rewards during this time period. This influenced decisions and some felt they deserver rewards.

Moving forward The ICC will push to ensure there is clarity in any Pauses/delayes or anything that can be understood multiple ways. If you are unsure about something please reach out to me or one of the council for clarity.

[real thorn]

Meeting Minutes have been uploaded to the Council Meeting Minutes drive and can be viewed in PDF format here: https://link.illuvium.io/CouncilMeetingMinutes

[signal swallow]

**[IMC]

IIP-66-R Remove the Bonus Fuel System**

I approve this proposal.

There isn't too much to say on this topic, although the bonus fuel system had good intentions and worked well in theory, it didn't quite accomplish the task efficiently. I would like to suggest something to labs to avoid a repeat of the previous system however. A current fuel price is great but really without comparison it doesn't show any information and could almost have a similar effect. Alongside this proposal, a visual of price history could be valuable for landowners and buyers on the fuel exchange.

As for the proposal itself, the addition of a minimum order size is an underrated addition and will help clean up the overall experience for the fuel exchange as well.

[covert horizon]

[IMC] IIP-66-R Remove the Bonus Fuel System

I approved this proposal.

1. Reached out and worked on the revision with the sponsor.

2. The proposal has been simplified to two items: replace the bonus system and minimum order size.

3. Discussed about the lite mode and pro mode feature. Maybe for future consideration.

4. Discussed about bid limit order and ask market order. Maybe for future consideration.

[eager carbon]

IIP-68: Move ILV Rewards into Treasury

I approve of this proposal.

Community Sentiment: Extremely Positive
76 Upvotes, 6 Downvotes

This is good for our optics, our runway, and will help us secure future investors. I believe some of the upvotes may not have realized that this will reduce the revenue distribution stakers will receive. However, since this benefits the project, it will ultimately yield more rewards in the long term than those being reduced now, in my opinion.

[tawdry ledge]

IIP-68: Move ILV Rewards into Treasury

I approve this proposal.

Currently, the DAO has two main focus pools: the treasury and ILV rewards, both holding close to 1 million ILV each. When investors evaluate our treasury, they might perceive it as limited, raising doubts about whether the DAO can generate enough revenue to remain profitable. By consolidating our tokens into a single pool, we project a stronger financial position, showing that we have ample tokens left to support the project's growth.

Kieran’s plan to stake these tokens will also extend our runway, allowing us more time to build and scale. While this decision may temporarily affect regular holders like us, the long-term goal is to reach a stage where the project generates 10s of millions in monthly revenue. At that point, we can unstake and clearly distinguish between the treasury and the reward pool for players, enhancing transparency and sustainability.

[hardy steppe]

IIP-68: Move ILV Rewards into Treasury

I approve of this proposal.

I like the idea of In-Game reward allocations being decided by the council instead of Illuvium Labs. This gives the DAO more control over how it rewards its players. Also if this helps us raise capital, that is a bonus.

[hoary widget]

IIP-68: Move ILV Rewards into Treasury

I approve this proposal

At the time of casting my vote, the community sentiment has been overwhelmingly in favor (83 upvotes/8 downvotes)

It is essential to maintain our focus on the long-term benefits for the DAO. While this may impact revenue distribution for current stakers, it will provide the DAO with greater flexibility in fund allocation moving forward (capital raises, operational costs, and funding tournaments/leaderboards).

I would like to express appreciation to Jaganite for the information shared around potential figures (which some felt were absent in the proposal & discussions) & to Garf for further clarifying/elaborating the context of how this will affect current stakers.

[tawdry ledge]

IIP-69: Illuvium Beyond - Leaderboards and Rewards Structure Redesign

I approve this proposal.

The revamped structure is designed to drive deeper engagement within the Beyond ecosystem, encouraging both current leaderboard players and new participants to compete through a separate leaderboard. The introduction of a sales share model ensures that players who excel in building strong albums and pushing for the top of the leaderboard are fairly rewarded for their efforts.

A critical point that Rogier highlighted is the removal of rewards for simply purchasing assets. This is essential across all our products. Without it, players will engage in a buy-sell cycle to maximize rewards, leading to an inflated ecosystem where assets lose value.

I’m looking forward to seeing the success of Wave 3 with this new structure in place.

[eager carbon]

IIP-69: Illuvium Beyond - Leaderboards and Rewards Structure Redesign

I approve this proposal.

Community Sentiment: Extremely Positive
38 Upvotes, 0 Downvotes

I upvoted this proposal because it effectively balances player engagement with the long-term sustainability of Illuvium Beyond. The updated leaderboard structure, including compensation for missed rewards, an expanded rewards pool, and more leaderboard ranks, provides clear incentives for players to stay active and competitive.

What I find particularly valuable is the shift towards rewarding players based on their gameplay and achievements, rather than just asset accumulation. This ensures a healthy in-game economy, preventing inflation and protecting the value of assets. By aligning rewards with meaningful participation, the proposal supports a thriving ecosystem that remains fun, competitive, and rewarding over time.

Overall, this proposal not only addresses immediate needs but also sets the stage for a sustainable future, ensuring that Illuvium Beyond continues to grow and evolve in a way that benefits the entire community.

[livid spear]

[ICC] IIP-68: Move ILV Rewards into Treasury

I approve this proposal.

Having more Revdis going to the treasury on its own is valuable. Moreover, it allows for a stronger look when raising or collaborating in the future when the treasury has a healthy amount of tokens left. I was personally waiting for a proposal such as this, or an increase in revdis going to the treasury to happen. Barely 10% of revenue going to a project is almost never feasible after all. We would have to pull off a Palworld if we want to see that happen. With it the treasury would scoop up 1-2M tokens and with then 30% of tokens it would easily be able to keep the project afloat. This proposal is the first step towards sustainability of the project, which i support fully.

[ICC] IIP-69: Illuvium Beyond - Leaderboards and Rewards Structure Redesign

I approve this proposal.

Illuvium Beyond is my favorite aspect of Illuvium. I love the collection aspect, pulling rare assets and seeing others aim for the high rankings in leaderboards. This proposal is a clear winner for me compared to the previous Airdrop version. This IIP plays into the Beyond mindset and rewards players with what they want in a sustainable fashion. The IOU's, as I've asked Rogier multiple times, are apparently feasible and with that provide the top 25 wave-rankings with very unique rewards unlike simple ILV. Lastly, the small amount of Alpha D1sks may sell out quickly. Especially because past stretch goals will cause a flood in free regular Megad1sks. The Alpha's will be significantly limited in comparison (and only slightly more pricy)!

Very good proposal, very quickly executed. I love how this turned out. Now, it's not a process we should repeat with similar haste moving forward, but it worked out this time. 🙂

[signal swallow]

[IMC] IIP-68: Move ILV Rewards into Treasury

I approve this proposal.

Currently the Treasury gains revenue from approximately 15-20% of all Revdis based on the quantity of tokens it holds. By merging it with the in-game Rewards Pool this number jumps much closer to 40%, meaning at the target burn rate the DAO would require monthly revenues of approximately $2-3m which is significantly more achievable than the current revenues the DAO requires.

On top of this, a healthier Treasury and overall position makes Illuvium more enticing to new investors, and those who wish to partner with us for other collaborations. Better still, it gives the DAO full control over how these tokens are used for future airdrop campaigns and keeps everything inside the same zone of decision making to streamline the entire process.

This proposal simply has so many benefits and very little downside and it marks a fantastic step forward and positive move for Illuvium's future.

[green magnet]

[IMC] IIP-67 Ensuring Fair Leaderboard Rewards for Illuvium Beyond

I'm in a similar camp as Kieran on this but voted that this proposal needs revisions. I'm not hard opposed to some adjustment of rewards for Wave 2 but it was clearly communicated as a pause and not a delay.

However, any sort of retroactive adjustment to rewards MUST include incorporation of the content from IIP-46 where a sustainable structure is put in place for all future waves for me to support it. The council at the time favored that approach (separate Wave and Set rewards) but wanted it incorporated with Wave 3 structures. I still believe this is the right framework.

[IMC] IIP-68: Move ILV Rewards into Treasury

I approve this proposal.

This is easily the best strategy for the DAO to ensue that sustainable revenue is coming in. This allows the team to continue building the core gameplay to achieve full PMF with the three core games. The impact to other token stakers should always be considered but the importance of providing sustainable runway is paramount to the DAO and ILV stakers have shown time and again that they understand that this is a long-term vision.

[IMC] IIP-66-R Remove the Bonus Fuel System

I approve this proposal.

The strategy to have the bonus fuel system was a good one. The implementation has proven to be too complex and unwieldy. The revisions take us back to a simple system.

[IMC] GFP-2 Enable Beyond D1SK Fragments in the Overworld

I abstained from this proposal due to potential conflict of interest given my role in developing Battle in the Beyond.

[IMC] GCCP-1 Esports Committee

I approve this proposal.

The approach makes sense to have an esports focused support network. The only relevant question is if it should be part of an existing committee or a new one. Given the importance of the topic to Arena and the feedback that the overhead to set it up as a separate commute is fairly minimal, I voted to proceed as a separate committee.

[hardy steppe]

IIP-69: Illuvium Beyond - Leaderboards and Rewards Structure Redesign

I approve this proposal.

The community loves this proposal, I love this proposal so lets get this implemented before Wave 3 and lets Make Beyond Great Again 😉 .

[signal swallow]

IIP-69 Illuvium Beyond - Leaderboards and Rewards Structure Redesign

I approve this proposal.

After the initial proposal by Kieran and the Council Rogier came forth with this proposal with a wide range of major changes, whilst still maintaining the spirit and goals of the original proposal. And he did a really amazing job of keeping so many different elements into consideration. Initially I wasn't convinced on the lump sum payout of the Wave 3 Leaderboard but I have come around to it after our council meeting this week.

Not only will this proposal improve the experience for those who aren't in the top 100, make the competition even more exciting, but it creates systems that are more welcoming to newcomers to Illuvium Beyond. On top of all that, the prize pool dynamically shifts based on the success of the Wave and I expect this to become the defining trait of Illuvium Beyond as it continues to evolve over the next few months.

[green magnet]

IIP-69 Illuvium Beyond - Leaderboards and Rewards Structure Redesign

I approve this proposal.

A comprehensive proposal was needed to wrap several items. In particular the leaderboard and rewards structures needed an overhaul for long term stability (which is accomplished here) but the addressing of the rewards gaps from previous weeks is addressed WHILE a permanent solution is put in place. This should be a good solution to continue to recognize both current leaderboard holders and our most loyal players over the past years and also draw in new players for future seasons knowing they can actually compete.

The Alpha sale is better suited for the current market demand while we engage players further and put a new focus back on Beyond for the start of this next wave.

[covert horizon]

[IMC] IIP-68 Move ILV Rewards into Treasury

I approved this proposal.

1. This proposal will almost double the treasury holding, increasing the DAO's ability to do more fund raising.

2. The amount of revenue needed to be generated to cover the monthly burn rate will be almost halved.

3. The use of ingame rewards for marketing purpose will require council approval.

4. The move will reduce stakers claim on revdis by ~25%.

5. The move is also changing the tokenomics from the whitepaper.

6. I have listened and considered the community sentiment from discord and X.

7. The DAO's priority should be to ensure the project's survival until we are in a better condition.

[covert horizon]

[IMC] IIP-69 Illuvium Beyond - Leaderboards and Rewards Structure Redesign

I approved this proposal.

1. I believe the distribution of 9-weeks of missed rewards is fair. Technically it was a "delay" because there was no official announcement regarding the pause.
   I have provided my reasoning here:
   #📯〕council-chambers message

2. Expanding the Set 1 Leaderboard from the top 100 to the top 200 players is a positive initiative for building a broader, loyal player base. This idea has been suggested multiple times in the past, and the increase in reward allocation for the Set 1 Leaderboard is appropriate.

3. The proposed Wave 3 Leaderboard rewards represent a balanced compromise:
   a. Concerns about incentivizing excessive minting of D1sk (supply) and the risk of devaluing the secondary market have been considered.
   b. Concerns about distributing 5,000 ILV per month have been addressed.
   c. The additional rewards scheme may provide a better cost/revenue ratio of ~14% (subject to ILV/ETH ratio).

4. Extra points from Alpha D1sks is appreciated.

5. In summary, this proposal is more aligned with the core values of Illuvium Beyond as a collection game, instead of becoming just an airdrop farm.

[eager carbon]

IIP-70 Blueprint and Skin Production Streamlining

I approve this proposal.

Community Sentiment: Extremely Positive
33 Upvotes, 0 Downvotes at the time of posting

We had an in-depth discussion with Perry about the various advantages and potential drawbacks of this proposal. The primary goal is to streamline the skin system in Illuvium Zero, which was much needed. Additionally, it reduces the backend load that the old system, around Morphopod Dyes, placed on the infrastructure.

This proposal also brings a net-positive impact for landowners by ensuring that market control remains with them.

It’s encouraging to see the team introducing proposals like this that address backend challenges while also simplifying and enhancing the skin production experience for landowners.

[livid spear]

[ICC] Blueprint and Skin Production Streamlining

I approve this proposal.

Difficult to top this, as these are the main benefits.
The team however will also benefit from the new system as they will be able to put Element/Fuel limiters on the minting of blueprints this way.

Since blueprints will now be used on the plot, and the single use skins are created on the plot, the cost of minting can be weighed off against a plot's production in (fuel) and elements. This way, rather than someone buying 1M fuel and directly minting say a thousand skins on day one, we will see a slower growth of skins, directly slowing down the supply curve and retaining the skins' prices in the immediate-near future.

From my perspective, a net positive on all fronts 👍

[tawdry ledge]

[ICC] Blueprint and Skin Production Streamlining
I approve this proposal.

Our discussion with Perry thoroughly examined the pros and potential drawbacks, and it’s clear that this change will streamline the skin system in Illuvium Zero, addressing a much-needed optimization. The shift away from Morphopod Dyes to this new system not only reduces backend load but also adds efficiency to our infrastructure

By placing control of skin production firmly in the hands of landowners, this proposal benefits them directly, fostering a more empowered and sustainable ecosystem for Illuvium Zero players. Additionally, the new approach prevents oversaturation, allowing high-tier skins to retain their value in the marketplace, which is crucial for maintaining a balanced economy.

[covert horizon]

[IMC] IIP-70 Blueprint and Skin Production Streamlining Proposal

I voted for revision.

1. I generally support any effort to streamline or simplify the game.

2. Abstract, "....creating more stable demand."
   It’s unclear to me how modifying the blueprint/skin production process could influence demand, as cosmetics are highly subjective and demand can be unpredictable. Creating a more stable supply makes more sense to me, given that blueprint production would no longer rely on the supply of morphopods from OW, even though it would be solely controlled by landowners.

3. OW and IZ interactions.
   I agree that reducing the number of items on the blockchain is beneficial due to backend limitations. Additionally, I personally dislike interacting with morphopods in OW. In the future, perhaps morphopods could be replaced with essences, ingots, or gems to create a resource sink for these items
   In the meantime, I support removing the OW and IZ interactions from the blueprint minting process if it helps expedite the launch of this feature.

4. I agree with giving landowners more control in the blueprint market, as suggested in this proposal.

5. The proposal needs to specify the type of "cost" involved in minting blueprints and purchasing morphopods—for example, fuel, elements, credits, etc.

6. The proposal should also clarify whether minting a skin will still burn illuvials as previously planned, or if this proposal aims to remove that process.

[hardy steppe]

[IMC] IIP-70 Blueprint and Skin Production Streamlining Proposal

I approve this proposal

Reasons:

The proposed changes aim to reduce strain on the backend, which helps the game's long-term sustainability.

Landowners have more control over the blueprint market

This proposal streamlines the skin system

This proposal eliminates unnecessary back and forth interactions between OverWorld and Zero.

[green magnet]

[IMC] IIP-70 Blueprint and Skin Production Streamlining Proposal
I approve this proposal.

Rationale
Optimization and iteration post launch is always essential and this appears to be a clear value-add to the broader economy. The emergent economy is important to give players ownership but creating interconnectedness between titles just for it's own sake isn't helpful. In this case, we can simplify back-end, reduce future tech debt, and marginally improve the player experience.

[signal swallow]

[IMC] IIP-70 Blueprint and Skin Production Streamlining Proposal

I approve this proposal.

Since the sponsor has so kindly laid this out with coherent points, I think talking to them individually makes sense here.

1. Removing Dye NFTs
It's clear that we need to remove as many NFT blockers as possible. Unnecessarily putting a strain on the blockchain for things that don't add tangible benefit makes no sense, this is a good move on that behalf.

2. Allowing Morphopods to be obtained in Illuvium Zero
I think this is the right approach for Illuvium as a whole. Although interoperability is at the heart of the ecosystem, it shouldn't prevent any gameplay functionality for those who only enjoy one game. It should simply be a fun added benefit for those mega fans, but the gameplay loops should remain unburdened.

3. Blueprints burned on use
This is a no brainer, this allows the Land Owners to remain as the sole providers of Blueprints, staying as the factory staple in Illuvium.

Overall this proposal is fantastic, its unfortunate that the Podarium and Dyes will need to be reworked and returned in a different form later on, but its better than making the gameplay worse to simply utilise them. This shows a wonderful path forward for Illuvium where we think carefully about what does and doesn't go on chain, what is necessary for interoperability, and the experiences every player has inside the Illuvium games.

[hoary widget]

[ ICC ] IIP-69 Illuvium Beyond - Leaderboards and Rewards Structure Redesign

I __approve __this proposal!

Ever since Wave 1, there have been continuous changes for every subsequent wave (Wave 2 & now, Wave 3). The biggest take-away in this proposal is highlighting many key features that will build the framework for the remainder of Set 1 to ensure Beyond’s long-term success. Some highlights:

• Increase Set 1 Leaderboard rewards to 250 ILV + expand to top 200 ranks = Benefits more players on the leaderboard
• Special Wave specific leaderboards for top 250 players. Base pool (2,000 ILV) + increases based on ETH spent during the wave = **Incentivizes participation in each Wave - get to climbing those rankings! **
• New unique wave-specific Illuvitars for top ranked players to encourage players to strive for the top spots = We all want something Rare and special - this offers that to players
• Setting parameters for Alpha D1sks (supply, duration, extra points for stretch goals, consistent pricing as Wave 2) = "1st Edition" at the start of each wave is important, and Alpha’s need to remain until the end of Set 1 for continuity. Can be re-evaluated in Set 2

To further emphasize the benefits of these changes, they can be incorporated with Partner Promotions during their exclusive Illuvitar releases, paving the way for major improvements and even “specialized leaderboards”. Perhaps even having a Unique NFTs combining all the selected Partner Illuvitars in a Group Photo (but having it tradable vs. soul-bound)

__Additional Notes: __

• Due to communication concerns around the Leaderboard rewards (originally outlined in Kieran’s proposal), it is good to see that the missed Set 1 leaderboard rewards will be addressed with a one-time payment
• Typically, it's best to keep proposals broad and avoid specific numbers/percentages, giving Illuvium Labs discretion to make these decisions during implementation. However, as this comes from a Core Contributor, precise values are appreciated.
• Personally - I liked seeing how receptive Rogier was to the community feedback, and also incorporating some changes quickly to improve the proposal prior to Council voting.

======================================================

[ ICC ] IIP-70 Blueprint and Skin Production Streamlining Proposal

I__ approve__ this proposal!

Here are some key reasons for approving this proposal, as it addresses multiple issues identified by Illuvium Labs:

#1) Simplifying processes and reducing backend load from frequent on-chain transactions (related to Morphopods and Dyes) will create a more cost-effective and sustainable system.

#2) Single-use blueprint NFTs limit mass-production capabilities, granting Landholders greater ownership and control over the blueprint market. Landowners will still be able to mint unlimited “single-use blueprints” for a cost and have two options:

• Mint a skin NFT (burns the SUBP - what’s another abbreviation, right?), __or __
• Sell the SUBP on the market for other players to be able to craft a single skin NFT themselves (which burns the SUBP)

#3) Interoperability remains a priority in our ecosystem, and it’s essential to continue enhancing it thoughtfully rather than doing it out of necessity (Interoperable Blockchain Games to the core!)

#4) While the original model is being reworked, it's reassuring to see that the Podarium Structure will be redefined and reintroduced at a later stage (while maintaining a meaningful purpose for landholders). It would be sad to see the building scrapped before it even had a chance to flourish!

I would like to shout-out Garf for working so closerly on this proposal. The visual representation really assisted many in better understanding the proposed changes (myself included).

[frosty forge]

[IMC]

IIP 68

I approve.

This IIP ensures that any earmarking and expenditure of the ILV in game rewards pool will pass through the rigorous process of Proposals. This enables the DAO and Council to have an active role in deciding how the in-game rewards pool will be disbursed. Additionally, having to transfer the in-game rewards ILV pool into the treasury, the DAO also increases its percentage in RevDis which will help in extending our runway. Lastly, the move shall also bolster our position should there be a need to do another capital raise.

IIP 69

I approve.

Extending the leaderboard makes absolute sense vs doing a complex airdrop that we have seen miss the mark and add unnecessary development time. I would have like to see leaderboards extend to 300-1000 at some point to allow more inclusivity and incentive for 'non-whales'.

The introduction of wave only leaderboards is a welcome change. This has been discussed quite a few times and the fact that waves reset after each wave would be a net positive to the DAO. The wave resets allows everyone to start fresh rather than be disadvantaged for not having bought in previous waves.

IIP 70

I approve.

Very happy to hear that morphopod and dye production is removed. I had felt that there were just too many hoops to jump through just for skins. In fact the same can be said with a lot of the systems in place but thats for a different proposal altogether. This proposal streamlines the process, lessens the dev time and forced interaction between the games and promotes more agency/control to land-owners without the need to jump into OW to build their blueprint empire.

[eager carbon]

IIP-71: Illuvium: Beyond D1SK Allocation for Marketing Purposes

I approve this proposal.

Community Sentiment: Extremely Positive
25 Upvotes, 0 Downvotes at the time of posting

This is a great proposal to enhance our marketing resources by allocating 5,000 standard and 1,000 mega D1SKs for marketing purposes. I think Beyond D1SKs are the perfect giveaway, something like a coffee mug or a keychain in real life, but here you get a flashy profile picture NFT that will draw you into loving the IP. Being bombarded by this amazing art is a great first step to make anyone fall in love with Illuvium. I appreciate Scruba stepping up and delivering what needed to be delivered, so we are ready to spread the word and the D1SKs.

[tawdry ledge]

IIP-71: Illuvium: Beyond D1SK Allocation for Marketing Purposes

I approve this Proposal

Allocating 5,000 Standard and 1,000 Mega D1SKS for marketing is a strategic step to grow Illuvium: Beyond's reach and engagement. These visually striking NFTs serve as perfect promotional tools, offering new players an accessible and exciting way to connect with the Illuvium universe. By leveraging their appeal, we can effectively lower barriers to entry, attract new audiences, and foster deeper engagement with the ecosystem.

This allocation ensures consistency across waves and provides the flexibility needed for targeted campaigns, influencer collaborations, and event sponsorships. With proven success in past waves, this approach builds on a strong foundation while enhancing our ability to grow the player base and strengthen community ties. It’s a practical and impactful way to expand Illuvium’s visibility and drive long-term ecosystem growth.

ICCP-21 Beyond Wave 3 and Future Waves - USD Peg, Pricing Update, and Rewards Update

I approve this proposal.

By pegging D1SK pricing to USD, this proposal ensures pricing stability and fairness across Wave 3 and future waves, addressing concerns around ETH price fluctuations. It creates a consistent buying experience, ensuring players feel confident their investment remains equitable throughout the wave. The revised rewards points system, which incentivizes D1SK openings and includes a 1.5x multiplier for Alpha D1SKS, enhances engagement and progression, rewarding players fairly for their purchases.

These updates not only make Illuvium Beyond more accessible to new players but also provide clarity and structure for collectors. The changes reflect a thoughtful response to community feedback, creating a balanced system that aligns with both player expectations and the long-term goals of the Illuvium ecosystem.

[eager carbon]

ICCP-21 Illuvium Beyond Wave 3 and Future Waves - USD Peg, Pricing Update, and Enhanced Rewards Points System

I approve this proposal.

Community Sentiment: Extremely Positive
39 Upvotes, 0 Downvotes at the time of posting

This is an excellent proposal, and it's clear why the community supports it. I appreciate the updated pricing and the decision to peg D1sks to USD. As we know, the crypto market is highly volatile at the moment, and this change provides a standardized price structure.

The multiplier for alpha D1sks is fantastic, as it appropriately reflects their special status and ensures they are rewarded accordingly.

Finally, the requirement to open D1sks to earn points for cosmetic rewards is a subtle yet impactful change. It incentivizes players to actively engage with the game if they want to claim rewards, rather than simply buying and reselling D1sks.

[signal swallow]

IIP-71 Illuvium Beyond D1SK Allocation for Marketing Purposes

I approve this proposal.

Although I think it doesn't need to be this high, this sort of incentive is important to foster future growth for Illuvium Beyond, especially to entice avid NFT buyers from other communities. I personally hope a large portion of this is allocated to bolstering the competitive PvP Aspects of Illuvium that we are focused on with the upcoming competitive rewards.

In the end, I trust the team to allocate these D1sks effectively, and its better to have too many D1sks available and not use them, then to run out before a big opportunity.

ICCP-21 Illuvium Beyond Wave 3 and Future Waves - USD Peg, Pricing Update, and Enhanced Rewards Points System

I approve this proposal.

I want to give my thoughts on each individual aspect.

USD Peg
This is a welcome addition to Illuvium Beyond and should make it significantly easier for buyers, especially those coming from outside the community.

Pricing
Overall I think this pricing aligns well with the intent set out from the councils strategy 2 epochs ago. Keeping Alpha Mega D1sks under $100 is also a good 'psychological price' win, however I am not convinced it should be 3x the price of non-Alpha D1sks however...

Limited Alpha Sale
Another huge win from the proposal limiting the amount of D1sks purchasable. Also the scarcity of Mega D1sks helps the price point make perfect sense, if this were to change then I would consider reworking the price.

Enhanced Rewards Points
This is a great incentive to make the Alpha sale highly sought after! Especially since it opens up further opportunity for future events, 1.2x points weekends, or highly specialised partners. I'd even like to see Emote D1sks and 'Illuvial Packs' be incorporated into these systems in some way.

The last thing I'll say is I'd like D1sks for future waves to return as rewards, as they are good incentive for players to return in future waves.

[green magnet]

IIP-71 Illuvium Beyond D1SK Allocation for Marketing Purposes

I approve this proposal.

This is the perfect example of the saying, “You have to spend money to make money.” Marketing D1SKs used like this have consistently been highly effective soend. Beyond players love them. They allow for reengagemrnt in a variety of community activations and they generate additional revenue for the DAO. Easy approval IMO.

ICCP-21 Illuvium Beyond Wave 3 and Future Waves - USD Peg, Pricing Update, and Enhanced Rewards Points System

I approve this proposal.

USD Peg
I don’t think this is a requirement but understand the psychology behind the change and agree there will be some simplification from this positioning. The DAO feels it’s the best approach and I am happy to make the change and evaluate perception of our audience.

Pricing
Pricing is fine. My number one focus on this point is that the team should bring back recommendations based on relevant info (which was done here) and give the council the general price positioning.

[covert horizon]

[IMC] IIP-71 Illuvium: Beyond D1SK Allocation for Marketing Purposes

I approved this proposal.

1. It is important to establish a marketing allocation for Wave 3 and Future waves to enable the marketing team to plan effectively.
2. I believe NFT giveaways are an effective and cost-efficient marketing tool to generate engagement in Web3. The giveaway winners will have to visit our website and get introduced to our ecosystem.
3. I believe the allocation is reasonable, valued at $55,000 ($25,000+$30,000), especially when compared to sales revenue from Wave 1 and Wave 2.
4. After the sales end, the team should analyze the effectiveness of this marketing initiative by examining the behavior of the recipients. Are they buying more, simply holding, engaging with other games, or just selling the D1sks?
5. I will be interested to know how many of the winners are existing community members and how many are new members.

[IMC] IIP-21 Illuvium Beyond Wave 3 and Future Waves - USD Peg, Pricing Update, and Enhanced Rewards Points System

I approved this proposal.

1. I am very proud of this proposal. Fixing our pricing in USD is pivotal. This proposal should set a precedent for the DAO's direction in increasing adoption.
2. I believe $4.99 is a strong psychological price point.
3. The point system has been adjusted to reflect the price difference, with points for alpha d1sk significantly boosted.
4. I would like to thank the community and the team for working on this proposal on such a short notice over the weekend.

[livid spear]

[ICC] IIP-71 Illuvium: Beyond D1SK Allocation for Marketing Purposes

I approved this proposal.

The details of this proposal were present in the wave 2 change proposal. Things would not change from back then to how they would be going forward. So, I don't see a reason to change the amount set aside for marketing in future waves such as wave 3. Community agreed on the amount back then, the team and council agreed on using these values moving forward so a simple yes should suffice.

[ICC] IIP-21 Illuvium Beyond Wave 3 and Future Waves - USD Peg, Pricing Update, and Enhanced Rewards Points System

I approved this proposal.

Pegging the pricing to a specific value in USD allows players to spend a more stable amount throughout the wave. Something that has been a point of contention for the past two waves. Coupled with lower pricing we may see more positive experiences with playing / buying d1sks in the Beyond. The leaderboard system also sees increased rewards and increased length alongside a secondary system for the wave specific leaderboard.
Overall this creates a much more enticing playing and reward structure for Illuvium Beyond.

[hardy steppe]

IIP-71 Illuvium Beyond D1SK Allocation for Marketing Purposes

I approve this proposal.

I wish there was a plan included on how the team planned to distribute these marketing disks in the most efficient way possible but since this was rushed I will trust the team on using them efficiently and strategically.

ICCP-21 Illuvium Beyond Wave 3 and Future Waves - USD Peg, Pricing Update, and Enhanced Rewards Points System

I approve this proposal.

I support ICCP-21 as it addresses key concerns and enhances the Illuvium Beyond experience.

The USD peg adds stability, making purchases more predictable and accessible, especially for new buyers.
I am still unsure that $30 for a mega disk is the correct pricing, Beyond is a collection game and as a player you will need to buy Mega D1sks to have a chance at completing your album but at the $30 price point we are pricing players out, in my opinion.

The limited Alpha sale adds value, while the enhanced rewards points system is a nice incentive.

[frosty forge]

[IMC]

ICCP-21

Approved.

It has been pushed several times by the community to have prices be pegged to USD for Beyond and after two waves it is irrefutable that having it pegged benefits the DAO as a whole as it ensures price stability regardless of the fluctations of the crypto market. Nobody wants to feel outpriced because of the swings in the market.

Updates to the rewards makes a lot of sense as it both incentivizes more agency for buyers to make decions on their purchases of the offerings.

IIP-71

As the proponent, I approve.

This general proposal makes marketing d1sk allocations applicable to future waves/sets. This just puts into paper current status quo and ensures efficiency. The marketing team can now plan ahead every wave on what to do with the allocation without having to waste time and effort to make a proposal each wave.

[hoary widget]

Apologies for these being posted so late. I thought they were shared several weeks ago, however, while updating the Council Participation Tracker, I realized they were never posted!

ICCP-21 = Illuvium Beyond Wave 3 and Future Waves - USD Peg, Pricing Update, and Enhanced Rewards Points System

Approved!

This proposal introduces improvements to the Illuvium Beyond ecosystem, addressing community feedback and fostering accessibility, fairness, and engagement.

Pegging D1SK prices to USD eliminates ETH volatility, ensuring consistent pricing across future waves and making the ecosystem more accessible for the community. The new price points seem to have been well-received ($4.99 Standard, $29.99 Mega, $9.99 Alpha Standard, $89.99 Alpha Mega).

The updated rewards structure allocates points to opened D1SKs only (no longer purchased), encouraging active participation and fostering progression. The 1.5x multiplier for Alpha D1SKs ensures fair rewards for premium products while enhancing their appeal to collectors.

By applying these changes to Wave 3 (and subsequent waves), the proposal ensures consistency. These updates stabilize pricing, improve rewards & engagement, creating a more accessible and rewarding experience for all players

===

IIP-71 = Illuvium Beyond D1SK Allocation for Marketing Purposes

Approved!

This proposal establishes a standardized framework for allocating D1SKS in promotional activities, ensuring consistency and sustainability across all waves. By reserving 5,000 Standard and 1,000 Mega D1SKS per wave, Illuvium Labs can support marketing campaigns (boost visibility with collabs), onboarding efforts (lower barrier to entry for new players), and community engagement initiatives, fostering loyalty and active participation across Web3.

Additionally, I would encourage Labs to consider maintaining a reserve of D1SKS for future campaigns, as they could presumably hold more value ($$) for future giveaways or promotions.

[eager carbon]

IIP-72: Improving Free-to-Play Gameplay and Ownership Value of Potentially All Illuvium NFTs

I approve this proposal.

Community Sentiment: Positive
30 Upvotes, 11 Downvotes at the time of posting

There are multiple reasons why this can be very beneficial for Gauntlet and future game modes:

• No Pay-to-Win, which is the absolute Web2 mainstream adoption killer. If a traditional gamer just smells Pay-to-Win, they are going to uninstall and hate the game religiously.
• Not splitting our player base into different game modes within Gauntlet. Having everyone compete in the same ladder is beneficial for the player base.
• The possibility to make ALL ownership of Illuvium assets matter. E.g., stats/levels give you a bonus for rewards, and your Illuvitar gives you another bonus to rewards, etc..
• We can focus our total prize pool into one ladder, making it look even better to have one big reward system instead of two.
• More streamlined and straightforward. The Leviathan aspect has always been one of the most confusing parts of Illuvium Arena.
• A lot less exploitable by bots and multi-accounts.
• Focusing on creating a reward system tied to ownership without affecting gameplay mechanics allows the development team to concentrate on enhancing the player experience in one game mode, rather than constantly adjusting gameplay for P2W balance issues across multiple stages of levels and stats. This ensures that dev resources are used efficiently and in line with long-term goals.

Possible downsides:

• Current player base annoyed by not delivering on the Pay-to-Win aspect.
• Less immersive because stats don't impact gameplay.

Final Suggestion:

There is a point to be made that the development team has already put work into Leviathan and might as well give it a try. I would like to mention that this is one of our last chances to get it right, and this proposal sounds like the less risky way forward as it has been proven to work in other web3 games. If Season 1 of competitive Leviathan fails, there might not be enough time and room to reinvent our rewards system. So, I think it is detrimental for us to get it right this time, and this proposed way could be the best for the future of Illuvium, not just the current player base that would like to have their assets be the promised Pay-to-Win.

[livid spear]

IIP-72: Improving Free-to-Play Gameplay and Ownership Value of Potentially All Illuvium NFTs

I decline this proposal.

While the community sentiment around the governance ideas channel seemed positive overall, the way in which the proposal was pushed as well as the final product leaves room for improvements prior to moving it to IMC. I want to mention that I had plans to help guide the proposal process, but did not follow through on them in the end. Part of the blame therefor lies with me around the textual basis and form.

Issues on textual basis and form:

1. The original document was 5 pages long with only a few sentences covering the actual proposal and 4 pages of fluff to explain why these main few were important. This caused the community to overlook the issues that were present in the original "abstract".
2. The abstract itself is a short summary in an academic paper that explains what is mentioned in the document. In this instance, the Abstract fails to summarize the content as there is no supporting body or conclusion in the document. In an official proposal, one would expect an overview section that blends the simple summary and abstract together. In the current version we have a thesis and an abstract without body and then a rationale.

Issues with the proposal itself:

1. The original vision of Illuvium was that Illuvials were the bridge between all Illuvium based titles. In the Overworld, Illuvials progress through levels and stats, whereas in Arena, they impact player power and leaderboard rankings. IZ already lacks some interoperability in the way that Illuvials do not have a main function. However, Illuvial NFTs are a key component in the other two games that allow you to participate in each of the stories and tournaments. This structure is not dissimilar to buying a Pokémon version wherein you can obtain Pokémon to experience a story and to participate in the gen-specific tournaments. The fact that Illuvials are not necessary for ranked arena currently, is already a major decrease in asset usability. Now completely removing them from the game, only to be used in meta-games such as the leaderboard reward system further decays interoperability.

2. Creating a system that rewards ownership in regards to point 5 and 6, actually undermines the second half of point 5 as we've seen with Illuvitars. While Ownership creates initial demand, once you have gotten your assets, you don't have to trade them anymore. While ownership-based rewards therefore indirectly trigger a slight price increase, it does not increase trading and fees. to encourage trading, you should do frequent balance patches that cause the active player to sell their out-of-favor Illuvials and the hoarder / swingtrader to buy them up regularly. The removal of Illuvials from the gameplay may instead exacerbate the illiquidity of the assets.

3. Leviathan, which also relies on player ownership and usability of Illuvials would have to be removed if this system were to take the front scene. I'm not saying that Leviathan is certain to be a large success, since the overall playerbase may be small and balancing stats of owned Illuvials may be met with resistance. Regardless, this proposal urges the team to already scrap the entire Leviathan system. The team, however, seems eager to see its resolution and implementation. Removing this entire gamemode may be premature as we haven't seen it play out yet. I would prefer such a proposal coming from the team if they decide on moving away from Leviathan.

[hoary widget]

**IIP-72 Improving Free-to-Play Gameplay and Ownership Value of potentially all Illuvium-NFTs

Declined!

If this proposal was approved as-is, it would eliminate Pay-to-Win (P2W) elements in Gauntlet. This would eliminate Leviathan mode entirely, since Illuvial stats and Illuvial levels would no longer impact gameplay (“where ownership provides rewards but does not impact gameplay”; “without having those assets impact the gameplay in a pay to win fashion”). There are currently both F2P and P2W modes in Gauntlet to provide players a choice as to which route they would like to play.

While I respect the 3:1 community vote in favor of the proposal, my responsibility is to represent the broader interests of the global community. It's important to consider the extensive discussions & posts around Leviathan, stats, levels (progression element), and game balancing. Removing the "P2W" mechanic before Leviathan and Rewards have had the opportunity to fully develop would be a disservice to the work already invested by Illuvium Labs. These systems are still evolving, and eliminating core gameplay mechanics at this stage would be unwise.

I fully agree that ownership rewards are important for fostering player investment and encouraging F2P players to participate in the broader ecosystem (purchase Illuvium NFTs). The current gap between F2P Gauntlet players and max-level/stat Leviathan players feels too wide. Instead of removing all P2W aspects, we should focus on ways to narrow this gap, and create a more balanced system that benefits both F2P and P2W players (both new and old).

[tawdry ledge]

IIP-72 Improving Free-to-Play Gameplay and Ownership Value of potentially all Illuvium-NFTs

I approve this proposal

Though I do so with a measured perspective, acknowledging both its potential and the need for careful refinement. This is a challenging vote, as the proposal contains elements that I believe need revision. However, I choose to focus on its intent, which aligns with many discussions in the feedback and ideas channels: expanding ownership utility across Illuvium's ecosystem. This concept is pivotal for our growth and innovation, and I believe it reflects the broader community's aspirations.

Key points:
Enhancing Utility for Low-Level Illuvials
Presently, low-stat or low-level Illuvials hold limited value, often reduced to being “dust” with minimal utility beyond burning for skins. This proposal introduces the potential for these assets—and others across our ecosystem—to contribute meaningfully through specific reward structures. This change could add interoperability and value to collections, creating a more inclusive experience for players outside the Leviathan “whale” demographic.

Expanding Ownership Rewards Without Compromising Leviathan
It is essential that Leviathan remains a standalone mode with full utility for high-level Illuvials and NFTs. While this proposal leans toward adding ownership rewards into the free-to-play (F2P) Gauntlet mode—or a future intermediary mode between Leviathan and F2P—Leviathan’s core functionality must be preserved. Ownership-based rewards should complement gameplay across modes, not diminish Leviathan’s distinct appeal.

Balancing Web2.5 Integration
A Web2.5 approach risks creating confusion among F2P players who might misinterpret ownership requirements. However, with thoughtful communication and marketing, we can frame this as an optional benefit rather than a necessity. This will ensure that NFT ownership remains an attractive enhancement rather than a perceived barrier. Players who grasp the system’s value will recognize it as an opportunity, driving ecosystem engagement and floor sweeping.

Fostering Innovation and Differentiation
While this proposal moves toward a model observed in other Web3 games, it’s vital that Illuvium stands apart. Consolidating everything into a single reward structure risks homogenizing our approach in a way that mirrors unsuccessful attempts by others to achieve mass adoption. Instead, we should aim for bold, innovative systems that leverage the unique value of our ecosystem, accompanied by effective marketing strategies to amplify their impact.

Strategic Flexibility for the IMC
My approval hinges on the expectation that the IMC will refine this proposal, ensuring clarity and alignment with our long-term goals. Specifically, the IMC should address:
Reward Structure Refinement: Clearly delineate how ownership rewards will integrate. What mode would they be positioned in and will modes be replaced/removed.

Moving Forward
The intent as I read it is beneficial.. However, we must ensure this doesn’t compromise the immersive, utility-driven(Pay to win) nature of Leviathan mode or oversimplify our approach to a single reward structure.

With Gauntlet nearing a strong state and rewards soon to be re-enabled, we stand on the brink of delivering something truly remarkable. To achieve this, we must strike a balance between aligning with proven Web3 concepts and pursuing bold, differentiated ideas that elevate Illuvium’s position as a leader in Web3 gaming.
I support this proposal cautiously, trusting that the IMC will guide the necessary revisions to ensure we uphold our ideals and create a system that benefits the entire ecosystem.

[eager carbon]

IIP-73: Improving Free-to-Play Gameplay and Ownership Value of Potentially All Illuvium-NFTs

I approve this proposal.
**
Community Sentiment:** Positive
27 Upvotes, 12 Downvotes at the time of posting

This is the second iteration of the proposal, after IIP-72 was declined due to a 2-2 vote and a missed vote. This gave the sponsor the opportunity to address concerns from the community and the council. While the core essence remains the same, it has been made very broad this time, leaving all decisions regarding how, when, and if to implement it to Illuvium Labs. I approve of this approach, especially in this specific scenario. At this point, it’s more of a suggestion than a set-in-stone proposal, which I think is appropriate here.

While working with Viper on this and offering my assistance, the main advice I gave was to make the proposal broader, and I’m happy to see that this advice was received and acted upon.

My old rationale, quoted in this reply, still applies for the most part.

Updated Rationale:
Making ownership matter is crucial for Illuvium's long-term success. Community sentiment is largely positive, though a vocal minority has expressed concerns that this proposal could undermine Leviathan.

I don’t think that’s the case:

• The proposal is broad enough that Illuvium Labs doesn’t have to take any action they don’t want to—essentially maintaining the status quo.
• The proposal is worded in a way that allows assets to have an impact on gameplay.

It could however act as a last-resort solution if Leviathan fails. That said, I’m confident that Leviathan will launch as intended and that the team is doing everything they can to make it succeed. If Leviathan succeeds, it will be a big step toward Illuvium’s long-term success. Additionally, making ownership matter in the F2P mode, for example, would represent another significant step forward.

[livid spear]

IIP-73: Improving Free-to-Play Gameplay and Ownership Value of Potentially All Illuvium-NFTs

I approve this proposal.

The proposal outlines a very broad category of incentivization surrounding player ownership of assets. The proposal clearly states that the idea revolves around the competitive non-Leviathan arena, that does not undermine Leviathan arena itself. With the broad outlining of its contents, the team will be able to come up with a fitting application in the Illuvium Ecosystem.

Certain examples were mentioned such as:
Add a weighting to the assets in your profile that directly impacts the rewards gained from f.e. leaderboard or tournament placements.
Add a weighting to the used assets in a battle, directly affecting the rewards earned based on the finish of your used Illuvials. Holo / Dark Holo affecting the rewards more heavily than regular ones.
Add a power weighting to your Illuvials based on their stats, further incentivising higher stat values on your Illuvials.

These examples may not be perfect, so I expect team and IMC to further deliberate on a proper way of implementing the asset usecase and coming to a resounding conclusion.

[hardy steppe]

IIP-73: Enhancing Free-to-Play Gameplay and Asset Ownership Value Across Illuvium-NFTs

I approve this proposal.

This proposal takes a broad and strategic approach to improving the value proposition for Illuvium-NFT ownership while aligning with the competitive vision of the ecosystem. By focusing on the non-Leviathan arena, the proposal ensures that it complements rather than competes with the Leviathan arena, safeguarding its integrity and purpose. The flexibility embedded in the proposal allows Illuvium Labs and the IMC to carefully develop and implement use cases that align with community and game design goals.

Key Elements of the Proposal:

The proposal provides examples to illustrate potential applications, including:

Weighting player-owned assets in profile-based rewards, such as leaderboards and tournaments.

Using asset-specific weightings in battles, where factors like the finish of Illuvials or the rarity (e.g., Holo/Dark Holo) directly impact rewards.

Introducing power weightings tied to the stats of Illuvials, incentivizing investment in higher-value assets.

While these examples are not definitive, they offer a solid starting point for discussions. The proposal’s open-ended nature ensures that Illuvium Labs retains control over the design and implementation process, which is critical in maintaining balance within the ecosystem.

Rationale:

1. Ownership Incentivization
   A cornerstone of Illuvium’s success lies in enhancing the tangible value of owning NFTs. This proposal focuses on fostering long-term engagement by tying gameplay rewards to ownership, encouraging players to invest time and resources into their assets.

2. Flexibility and Alignment
   By leaving implementation details to Illuvium Labs, the proposal avoids rigid mandates. This ensures that any changes are deliberate, well-tested, and aligned with the ecosystem’s overarching goals. It also provides a contingency framework that could support the ecosystem should the Leviathan arena face challenges.

3. Complementary, Not Competitive
   The proposal is designed to enhance the broader ecosystem without undermining the Leviathan arena. This balance is critical to maintaining player confidence and ensuring the proposal contributes to the game's sustainability.

Community Sentiment:
The proposal has garnered positive feedback, with 28 upvotes and 12 downvotes at the time of review. While a minority has voiced concerns over potential conflicts with the Leviathan arena, these concerns are mitigated by the proposal's broad and flexible design.

Conclusion:
I approve this proposal as it lays the groundwork for meaningful discussions on asset utilization while empowering Illuvium Labs to take measured steps toward implementation. The focus on enhancing ownership value and free-to-play engagement is well-aligned with Illuvium's vision for sustainable growth.

[covert horizon]

[IMC] IIP-73 Enhancing Free-to-Play Gameplay and Asset Ownership Value Across Illuvium-NFTs

I declined this proposal.

1. "Overview"
   Based on my experience working closely with Labs as a council member, I understand that Labs has specific tasks with their own priorities and deadlines. Currently, Labs already have several deliverables from passed proposals that are yet to be completed. This proposal feels more like a "general idea" rather than an actionable one.

I prefer proposals to provide clear, actionable tasks instead of being too broad or vague. A proposal should have straightforward and well-defined objectives. The overview of this proposal uses conditional phrasing, with terms like "including but," "without having," and "unless," which make it lacking clarity to me.

2. "Labs should work towards creating a system that gives players of Gauntlet and future games rewards based on owning assets"

We need to establish a clear goal for providing rewards in the Gauntlet. Rewards can primarily serve two purposes:

• Attracting new F2P players, or
• Retaining existing asset owners

Our current Gauntlet modes—Normal Gauntlet and Leviathan Gauntlet—already cater to these two target markets separately. This proposal is lacking explanation on how a "hybrid" or "web2.5" system can attract more player base than the current system.

In my opinion, rewarding players based on skill rather than asset ownership might be more appealing to F2P web2 gamers, particularly those who play games like TFT. I believe our strategy should be to attract as many players as possible.

This proposal explicitly excludes the Overworld, Arena Survival mode, Arena Ascendant mode, IZ, and Beyond.

3. "..including but not limited to Illuvials.."

Each type of asset in our ecosystem has its own utility:

• IZ Land plot: Produces blueprints and fuel.
• Beyond Illuvitar: Functions as an in-game profile picture and allows players to win leaderboard token rewards.
• Illuvials: Used in the Overworld (OW) and Arena, and to win rewards in leaderboards/tournaments.

In my opinion, rewarding players in Gauntlet for owning IZ Land plots and/or Illuvitars would dilute the value of owning Illuvials.

4. "..without having those assets impact the gameplay unless they are tied to gameplay elements in that game or game mode outside of this system as well."

From my observation, it is rare to acquire and use Tier 5 Stage 3 Illuvials in Gauntlet mode. Why should players be rewarded for assets they do not use for playing and winning the games?

In my opinion, in-game rewards should be based on the use of assets within the game rather than merely owning them passively in a wallet. I believe we are a gaming project, not an NFT staking platform.

5. "Many games and genres in the gaming industry are currently optimised and designed with cosmetic-only monetisation, and applying concepts from these games to Illuvium titles seems beneficial. However, they are not suited to incorporate ownership in a way that would alter gameplay."

Currently, cosmetics in Illuvium do not alter gameplay.

6. "This approach aligns with the industry standard for comparable games and genres, which typically avoid mechanics that differentiate player capabilities based on owned assets,.."

I would prefer the sponsor to specify which industry standards are being referenced and which comparable games and genres are being used as a basis for these claims.

The Normal Gauntlet mode already provides a way for F2P players to earn rewards based on gameplay without the need to own assets.

7. I prefer to see the performance of the existing rewards system in Normal Gauntlet and Leviathan Gauntlet before making huge changes.

[green magnet]

[IMC] IIP-73 Enhancing Free-to-Play Gameplay and Asset Ownership Value Across Illuvium-NFTs

I refer this proposal for Revisions.

• I fundamentally agree that the use of cosmetics is the right way to go forward for us in Gauntlet.
• We should be shifting toward more Web2 gamers, not into Web3 gamers. This general direction makes sense.
• I believe that there should be more specific details for what exactly is being done. I would support with more specific details aligned with the team and community.

[signal swallow]

[IMC] IIP-73 Enhancing Free-to-Play Gameplay and Asset Ownership Value Across Illuvium-NFTs

I decline this proposal

Firstly, I think this proposal is way too broad and doesn't actually request anything of the DAO and Labs. It doesn't address which game mode the proposal seeks to apply to and the rationale doesn't clarify the intended outcome of the request, but rather how it might compare to other Web 2 competitors.

The main thing for me here is this makes a direct comparison between ownership/earning and cosmetic items in video games which I disagree with. A cosmetic item that is favourable to gamers as a monetisation tool comes with zero promises to the player besides appearing different in-game. The premise of rewarding ownership comes with the promise of 'investing' in the NFTs the game has to offer, hoping for a reward that will have an ROI on said investment, which is a massive problem that caused the implosion of Axie Infinity in 2021/2022.

Additionally when 'Web 2' Gamers look at Illuvium I believe they will easily use this as an excuse to say that its not truly Free to Play since NFTs are involved in the game, despite granting no competitive advantage. Obviously this will be hard to separate with the Leviathan Arena but with careful marketing and strong UI treatment inside the client its significantly easier than it would be if ownership was embedded in the entry point for players. I believe this proposal would stifle player growth for the game, which is integral to driving players further down the funnel and turning them into long-term fans of Illuvium.

[hoary widget]

IIP-73: Improving Free-to-Play Gameplay and Ownership Value of potentially all Illuvium-NFTs

I approve this proposal

Compared to IIP-72, the updated verbiage has improved, which made me more confident in approving this go around. While it may seem minor, this statement provides reassurance that Gauntlet Leviathan can remain unaffected by this proposal: “unless they are tied to gameplay elements in that game or game mode outside of this system as well”

This proposal recognizes the value of asset ownership and it presents a more fair/balanced approach to both gameplay and ownership rewards. Illuvium Labs should establish a system that allows players to earn rewards for owning assets (NFTs) within the Illuvium ecosystem, without these assets affecting gameplay (unless tied to specific game elements or modes - Example: Leviathan).

The idea in this proposal (web 2.5 approach) could benefit NFT owners via rewards, while maintaining a fair/accessible experience for both Free-to-Play (F2P) & Pay-to-Win (P2W) players.

=========================================================

GCCP-2: Illuvium Main Council Remuneration Reduction

I approve this proposal

Since I was the sponsor for this proposal, most of my rationale is written within the proposal itself.

Community sentiment: 33 upvotes; 0 downvotes
(excluding mine that was added to have both options available to voters)

• This proposal adjusts the remuneration of Illuvium Main Council (IMC) members to align with prior standards
• IMC is no longer bound by the additional responsibilities & risks around VARA compliance (which was partly why remuneration was increased in Gov V3)
• The reduction of 25% is consistent with ICCP-02, so it makes sense that the monthly stipend be reduced to USD 3,750 per month - paid in $ILV
• The DAO is prepared to make these tough decisions and is committed to shared sacrifices (reducing spend), while also ensuring that funds are used efficiently and appropriately.

[livid spear]

GCCP-2: Illuvium Main Council Remuneration Reduction

I approve this proposal,

This proposal seeks to reduce stipend for IMC members by 25%, which is in line with the project's intentions of decreasing overall expenditures. According to governance documentation, part of the rationale supporting the IMC stipend was based around the risk induced by VARA regulations. Since this risk has been mitigated to an extent, reducing IMC pay can be justified. The DAO being progressive in this regard speaks to the integrity of the council. 👍

[eager carbon]

GCCP-2: Illuvium Main Council Remuneration Reduction

I approve this proposal.

Community Sentiment: Extremely Positive
35 Upvotes, 0 Downvotes at the time of posting

I'm really glad to see this proposal finally go through after all the discussions in the last epoch. Now that the VARA concerns are out of the way, it makes sense to roll back the extra pay that was introduced to deal with them. This move fits perfectly with the goal of cutting unnecessary spending while keeping things fair and efficient.

It's great to see the Illuvium Main Council (IMC) being open to these changes and showing their commitment to handling the DAO’s finances responsibly.

[signal swallow]

GCCP-2: Illuvium Main Council Remuneration Reduction

I approve this proposal.

I see no reason to not deny this proposal, it makes perfect sense and relates to a foundational baseline given recent events with VARA. Ultimately this is simply one step in moving towards this direction.

At the risk of scaring away potential talent for the council I'd like to see pay be restructured even further in the future for both the IMC and ICC in alignment with Labs as everyone reduces costs to ensure Illuvium gets to where it needs to be, ultimately that's whats most important.

[covert horizon]

GCCP-2: Illuvium Main Council Remuneration Reduction

I approved this proposal.

1. Illuvium DAO has ceased to pursue registration in Dubai under VARA and is currently has no plan to.

2. Alternative jurisdictions like the Cayman Island has been considered but is not currently being pursued due to limitations.

3. Remuneration reduction is aligned with the above points and the general cost reduction of the DAO.

4. As the DAO is not registered anywhere, afaik the individuals serving the IMC can be personally liable. D&O insurance was considered but the premium might be too expensive. Alternatively, I am suggesting regular 3rd party audits into the financials and operations of the project to ensure good governance.

5. I personally believe we should continue looking for alternatives for the Illuvium DAO to be registered. First, the DAO might be able to own the Illuvium IP (currently owned by Labs). Second, the DAO might be able to control the Treasury Wallet.

[daring tendon]

IIP-73 - declining this proposal

As I have mentioned many times in the council discussions about this proposal, I don't think it makes sense to make changes to a system that we haven’t tested. I'm worried that adding ownership to our “clean” version of the game will only signal to mainstream gamers that this is an NFT-based game, and if I want “cool” stuff or more rewards, I have to pay.

It's not even an issue of right or wrong. It definitely could be the best thing for us to do, but we don't know yet if this sort of thing would turn off gamers. I would much prefer we test out having two versions, one that has nothing to do with nfts and another that has nfts and is somewhat pay-to-win.

If we find out that people don't care or just assume it's an NFT-based game, regardless of whether it is or is not, we can add it.

Gccp-2

Approving this proposal.

I favoured the higher pay due to the inherent risks of being a council member under the VARA structure. However, now that we have decided to stop pursuing VARA regulations, I think it makes sense to reduce council pay in line with our cost reductions across the entire studio.

[hardy steppe]

GCCP-2: Illuvium Main Council Remuneration Reduction

I approve this proposal.

The proposal to reduce the Illuvium Main Council (IMC) pay by is both logical and timely, given recent developments. With the DAO no longer pursuing registration under VARA in Dubai.

This reduction aligns with the DAO’s broader initiative to cut costs while ensuring operational efficiency.

[green magnet]

GCCP-2: Illuvium Main Council Remuneration Reduction

I approve this proposal.

The VARA requirements were previously very burdensome and high risk for council members (particularly IMC). The removal of this requirement does reduce some individual risk that IMC members take on to serve in the role. Additionally, the DAO faces tight financial constraints and alongside studio size reductions,

Against this backdrop, a compensation reduction for the IMC makes sense. The realization of cost savings by the IMC is the right signal to send.

[hoary widget]

__** Resignation from ICC ** __

Good evening Illuvium Community,

I wanted to publically share that my priorities in my personal life shifted heavily (nothing bad, I promise) and unfortunately had to make the tough decision to resign from my role on ICC. I would no longer have time or bandwidth to dedicate to the role and it does not feel right to occupy a seat when another candidate could provide more time and hopefully more impact than I can moving forward.

I am sorry to be sharing such disappointing news. I did not come to this decision lightly and it is with a heavy-heart that I need to step away. I feel like I represented the community well this epoch and gave it my all on Council to make as many improvements as possible.

We are currently in a transition period of me stepping away and onboarding the new council member that will be taking my seat. I am confident that current ICC and whoever joins will continue strong in my absence and continue representing the Community and make necessary improvements to governance.

Please know that I will be around and can always be reached out to! I will do my best to find the time to answer any questions and assist where I can (as a community member) ❤️

[signal swallow]

GCCP-3: Temporary Re-Allocation of Council Payment Funds to Community Streamers

I decline this proposal.

I am in favour of 95% of this proposal which makes it super annoying that I need to decline it but I really hope it returns as 2 separate proposals and/or with some minor adjustments. Ultimately, despite the clear downsides in turning the council into a purely volunteer role, I am personally in favour of reducing the council pay in the current market conditions. That being said the set period of 12 months outlined here is way too long and it should be re-evaluated to at least every 3-6 months.

As for supporting streamers, I think the initiative is fantastic although I'm not convinced targeting the existing creator base is effective for gaining new players, showing people what it means to be a part of the community definitely has some profound effects. I hope that this proposal is adjusted, maybe reducing council pay significantly instead of entirely, and a second proposal is introduced for unique incentives mechanisms to support current and new creators with the funds that would have been spent on the council. We have seen competitors leverage creator programs to great effect and I think its well worth attempting.

I also must quickly check my bias here since I would stand to gain tremendously from such a proposal and would abstain from such a thing.

[covert horizon]

GCCP-3: Temporary Re-Allocation of Council Payment Funds to Community Streamers

I declined this proposal.

I declined this proposal due to technicalities. One half concerns council pay, which falls under a GCCP, while the other half focuses on marketing, which should be an IIP.
I hope the sponsor is willing to split the proposal into a GCCP and an IIP.

[eager carbon]

GCCP-3: Temporary Reallocation of Council Payment Funds to Community Streamers

I decline this proposal.

Community Sentiment:
29 Upvotes, 11 Downvotes at the time of posting

As stated above, this should not be a 2-in-1 proposal. These are very different topics that need their own separate proposals.

I also want to share my thoughts on the individual parts.

Mid-Epoch Changes:

• Current council members accepted their roles with the expectation of compensation, and altering this mid-term undermines that agreement.
• Major structural decisions should be voted on and take effect at epoch turnovers.

If the community wants to stop council payments, I would support doing this for Epoch 11 and then reassessing it during the epoch. That being said, I want to make it clear that I will be rerunning for council regardless of whether compensation remains.

Unpaid Council:

• Without compensation, the role becomes far less appealing to highly qualified candidates and significantly increases the risk of malicious actors on the council.
• These positions—especially the IMC—carry high risks, making it unreasonable to expect people to take on such responsibilities without proper compensation.

Reallocating Funds to Streamers:
I’m one of the few streamers, and I’m against this. Right now, Illuvium isn’t actively marketing while they focus on building the games.

If we bring back direct payouts for views, like we had before the Alliance Program, we’ll see people gaming the system again—buying views and viewers just to extract money.

That said, the old system works well for something like our big upcoming relaunch when the goal is maximum hype for a short period. But that’s not a long-term, sustainable model.

For an ongoing game, the Alliance Program is by far the best system. It tracks real numbers—cost of acquisition and revenue generated—which are the only two metrics that matter for fair and effective marketing spend.

Conclusion:

• The best path forward, in my opinion, is to drastically reduce council pay for Epoch 11 (e.g., by 50%).
• Yes, bring back big rewards for content creators, especially streamers, but only for the relaunch of the games and for a short period. Keep the highly effective Alliance Program running, and leave the details of these marketing decisions to Illuvium Labs, allowing them to coordinate with the rest of their marketing efforts.

[tawdry ledge]

GCCP-3: Temporary Reallocation of Council Payment Funds to Community Streamers

I decline this proposal.

There are two topics brought up that I believe should be split to gain feedback independently. Similarly with the Proposal brought forward by F4E.

Part 1: Removing council pay: The ICC made adjustments where we thought the Governance structure was no longer providing equal value in GCCP 2. I feel that moving the council to purely a volunteer role is not a benefit for the DAO, as I am not confident we will have good representation in the council. The ICC already pushed for a VONC on one member and the community did not allow for better representation to get in. Reducing council pay will only compound this issue. We understand that the Governance needs improvement, but is reducing pay the right move. I would rather get new energized and motivated people in that want and can put in the work. We should have members in that are doing so well that we want to give them a raise! I think this is a fault on all of us of not being critical enough on who is on council...

If we are going to remove pay I would recommend we remove the council all together temporarily till we feel we can get proper leaders in the council positions.

Part 2: Proving additional income for content creators. This can be a useful tool and I know labs has plans and campaigns to launch once we are closer to our game being in a good shape where we will have the best retention Rates. These need to be highly targeted on influencers out side of our core community with a reach that is outside of web3 for the most part. I am confident that the current influencers we have, will not move the needle much and would be a waste of resources.

[green magnet]

GCCP-3: Temporary Re-Allocation of Council Payment Funds to Community Streamers

I decline this proposal.

Increasing comp to streamers is a terrible waste of funds at the moment. The team is already prepared to do so once the next iteration of products is out.

Regarding council comp reductions, I agree with most of the content above from other council members. The council exists with its members spending hours weekly and shouldering a high amount of risk on behalf of the DAO. A reduction to zero comp ensures the lowest possible quality council members at a time the DAO can’t really afford that.

[mystic pulsar]

GCCP-3: Temporary Re-Allocation of Council Payment Funds to Community Streamers

I decline this proposal.

My first problem with this proposal as it is written is that it covers two different "issues" that should each be their own proposal.

Secondly, I do not think allocating more capital to our existing content creator network is money well spent, and labs has strategies already in place to expand this creator pool with new incentives when the games are closer to polished state. *I would however be in favor of reform with our current creator program (referral program).

I fundamentally disagree with reducing council pay to zero as i believe it sets the wrong precedent and fails to attract the most-qualified individuals to the role. It is currently a risk to reward calculation, and if you remove all reward then there is only risk. Lastly, decisions of this magnitude should not be made mid-epoch. Members of the current council agreed to their responsibilities with the understanding they would be compensated and the DAO should keep that promise until the end of the current term. With that said, I would be in favor of alternative forms of lock/vesting on council compensation if the concern from the community is sell pressure from council pay distributions.

[livid spear]

[ICC] GCCP-3: Temporary Re-Allocation of Council Payment Funds to Community Streamers

I decline this proposal.

This proposal is two-in-one which doesn't work. It should be split up into council pay reduction / change GCCP and influencer pay increase IIP or ICCP.

Influencer pay increase on its own is controversial, because it's like telling labs to give a particular person a raise in the team. I don't think that's where the council's should make decisions or changes.
I do agree with pausing council pay. We have seen that the team is making cuts, and so the council should similarly aim to reduce costs to extend runway as much as possible.

I'm however currently experiencing some issues with Snapshot #1339114677195771924 message So i can't seem to vote.

[hardy steppe]

GCCP-3: Temporary Re-Allocation of Council Payment Funds to Community Streamers

I approve this proposal. While it may not align perfectly with all aspects of my vision, I believe it represents a positive step forward in how the council should evolve. Therefore, I support it.

[frosty forge]

**[IMC] **

IIP-73 Enhancing Free-to-Play Gameplay and Asset Ownership Value Across Illuvium-NFTs

I voted for revisions.

My only concern here is that Labs input is needed before we pass this unilaterally. The proposal seems to downplay the impact it has on Leviathan to which I disagree.

GCCP-2 Illuvium Main Council Remuneration Reduction

I approve this proposal.

The main reason there was an increase in pay to IMC was due to the additional risk and exposure the members had to take due to the VARA registration. Now that VARA is no longer pushing through, it makes sense to revert back to the original remuneration.

GCCP-3: Temporary Re-Allocation of Council Payment Funds to Community Streamers

I decline this proposal.

On transferring funding to streamers:

It would be a waste of money to give it to streamers for the following reason:

1. Game is not in a state that can increase retention of players. No matter how many people are being paid to stream, if the game is not sticky enough, we would have just wasted the funds with little increase in players.

2. We already have an influencer marketing program. And if Labs has decided to pause or slow this down, they did so knowing that the current program isnt working for various reasons. Throwing more money at it wont change a thing

On reducing/pausing pay of council:

My colleagues have already explained thoroughly the cons of these from 1) Risk of not attracting the right talent 2) less people wanting to take part 3) not commensurate to the work etc.

It would make more sense to have a reduction of pay across the board than to completely eliminate it. Be that as it may, there would be a need to re-evaluate the duties and responsibilities of council as well. If the direction is to reduce or completely defund council, then the expectations as well as duties and responsibilities should also be changed.

[signal swallow]

IIP-EP-1 - Illuvium - Fuel Exchange and Economic Model Rework

I approve this proposal.

In early December 2024 the council voted on a giant Emergency Proposal. I elected to commit to these changes as an Emergency Proposal because of the risk frontrunning could have on an Illuvial economy that was already taking hits that will take Illuvium quite some time to recover from. The council recognised that this had several core problems sweeping throughout the Illuvium economy and we had to do something to fix it.

The proposal is quite deep so I will briefly cover off each section.

Fuel Merging: By keeping everyone's $ value the same after the migration I saw this as the best possible outcome to both achieve our simpler fuel system and fixed pricing structure without erasing or reimbursing existing fuel in the ecosystem. I was also excited to see that the 3 fuel system is being removed, which is integral to making Illuvium more accessible, especially as we evolve into the MMO-Lite.

Fixed Price Fuel: This is a discussion that has come up many times in Illuvium over the past 12-18 months and it turns out that dynamic fuel systems don't work in such a volatile Crypto Gaming environment. At scale any sort of dynamic system is revolutionary, but until the games are good enough to support such demand, a fixed price system makes the most sense. Thankfully the dynamic pricing did give a small amount of data to help influence the price point the team and council agreed on.

Land Holder Earnings Distribution: Honestly it should have always been this way, for the same reasons listed above. Unfortunately making overcomplicated systems can have many downsides when they see a lack of engagement. Keeping it simple with a flat % distribution and clear guidelines on how to participate make this less exciting day-to-day but far superior in functionality.

Disabling Sending Fuel: I think this is a system that really makes Illuvium feel like a connected world. It is an unfortunate side effect that it has to be cut but I hope that if Illuvium becomes successful, we can invest resources into rebuilding this system better than ever before.

Although this takes away some level of 'interoperable blockchain game' it is all highly necessary to allow Illuvium to reach its potential.

[tawdry ledge]

IIP-EP-1 - Illuvium - Fuel Exchange and Economic Model Rework

I supported this proposal.

Last fall, we saw firsthand how destructive the previous economic model was to our NFTs, gameplay loop, and overall sentiment. The system was overly complex and led to hyperinflationary fuel generation, which needed urgent correction. Several potential solutions were explored, and based on team capabilities and community-driven ideas at the time, we moved forward with this new economic structure.

Due to the significant risk of market manipulation, we had to enact this as an emergency proposal rather than making it a public IIP.

I understand that the new system has both pros and cons, but for the long-term growth of the project, I believe this was the best path forward. As someone who holds all asset classes and has a significant portion of my net worth invested, I carefully considered all aspects before making my decision.

I’m confident that we’re reaching an inflection point—Gauntlet continues to improve, and hype is building around Breach and Overworld. Let’s keep pushing forward to bring Illuvium to millions of players.

[green magnet]

IIP-EP-1 - Illuvium - Fuel Exchange and Economic Model Rework

I approve this proposal.

By fall of 2024, it was apparent an overhaul to the underlying economic system of Illuvium was necessary. Simplification of systems, reduction of assets, and maintaining the core value proposition of land and fuel are all the critical elements that needed to be accomplished in this proposal. This gives us an effective go-to-market approach for the upcoming reset of the project as the current round of changes is being done. Without this type of major overhaul, there was not going to be an opportunity to go after a larger player base.

The scale of this change means that many individuals in the current community are going to be impacted, some negatively. In order to make sure the project can continue, we have to be laser focused on adding more players and revenue. Some of those players have to come from the non-Web3 native space. The reduction in volatility and increase in approachability is one of the most important things we can do.

The requirement to run this as an Emergency Proposal, while not a perfect solution, allowed the changes to be implemented without causing substantial negative financial impacts to the project.

[covert horizon]

IIP-EP-1 - Illuvium - Fuel Exchange and Economic Model Rework

I approved this proposal.

Background
Fuel has always been a cornerstone of the Illuvium ecosystem. Since its inception, we have seen multiple proposals regarding fuel—covering aspects such as supply balancing, initial pricing, bonus systems, and even its eventual phase-out. Fuel was an exciting and novel concept: "Become an industrial baron. Produce your own fuel, speculate on the market."

However, this innovative idea has not been without its challenges.

At the launch of Open Beta, fuel supply was insufficient, causing prices to remain at the top limit for several days. The team had to intervene by increasing the rate of fuel production.

Once demand subsided, fuel prices began a downward spiral. Landowners, struggling to sell their increased supply, started undercutting each other, driving fuel prices to the floor. In response, the team intervened again, this time cutting production by 75%. While the supply shock temporarily spiked fuel prices, it was soon met with decreasing demand.

The downward spiral was exacerbated by the lack of demand following the suspension of the airdrop campaign. A solution was needed to stop the fall.

In November 2024, Perry shared a proposal for a fuel overhaul with the council. The council quickly discussed the proposal with Perry and made revisions. Later that month, the IMC held a vote to decide whether to use an Emergency Proposal—introduced in IIP-32—or proceed with a normal IIP. I voted against using an Emergency Proposal. My reasoning at the time was that community sentiment had been improving, and we should not risk damaging that progress with an EP.

During our meeting, I stated that frontrunning was acceptable since it would generate revenue. Additionally, the team had mentioned plans to merge fuel types and fix the fuel price at 50% of the top rail in an AMA. However, the majority of the IMC voted in favor of using an Emergency Proposal. We enacted a trading blackout period and made our final revisions. Once the document was finalized, the IMC unanimously voted to accept the proposal.

Rationale:

1. I have long advocated for converting the three fuel types into one. In my opinion, managing three fuels adds unnecessary complexity.

2. The fuel exchange system and the team's interventions in fuel pricing have caused frustration and confusion. It is time to put an end to it. Landowners no longer need to undercut themselves and this will end the fuel price downward spiral.

3. I believe a fixed fuel price should be more attractive to new players.

4. The ability to transfer fuel to OW is a useful feature, but it deprives the DAO of revenue when utilized.

5. I understand that fuel is a primary utility of land plots, but in practice, it simply does not work as intended.

6. I believe that separating IZ from the rest of the ecosystem is a straightforward solution to untangle the current issues.

7. This proposal is intended to maintain the purchasing power of owned fuel.

8. I hope this proposal will enable the team to redesign and revamp the game to attract more players.

[eager carbon]

IIP-74: Refund for Unused Fuel Purchased Below Minimum Rail

I approve this proposal.

Community Sentiment: Extremely Positive
61 Upvotes, 2 Downvotes at the time of posting

This proposed solution seems to be by far the best middle ground that the community and/or team has come up with, and it appears almost everyone who has voiced their opinions on the topic is satisfied with this solution.

Illuvium removes the overinflated purchasing power some users were able to accumulate, clearing a major obstacle for Illuvium’s future success. Users who participated in the broken system will not be penalized; instead, they will receive refunds for the money they spent.

There was some discussion regarding whether this is a good idea since it might set a bad precedent, potentially encouraging the community to ask for refunds in future incidents, which is an incredibly bad business practice to allow. However, it is important to note that this is a unique situation involving a broken system that wasn't promptly closed, thus allowing players to interact with it extensively, which should have never happened. Ideally, this scenario won't occur again, but if it does, refunds would be warranted. If a system is broken to the extent that continuing it harms the DAO, the optimal solution, if possible, is to close the feature and reverse the actions taken within the faulty system.

I believe this has been an important learning experience for the DAO, the council, and the team. The project escaped with only a minor setback. While some revenue was lost, the consequences could have been far worse, and fortunately, we managed to address the issue with minimal damage to all parties involved.

Moving forward, let’s act quickly and transparently, shutting down broken systems immediately upon identifying them—not a minute later.

[sonic pawn]

IIP-74 Refund for Unused Fuel Purchased Below Minimum Rail

I approve this proposal

With 62-2 upvotes to downvotes at the time of writing, it's clear that the community strongly supports a refund

While this proposal doesn't address everything, it fairly resolves the major 89:1 conversion issue raised by the community without jeopardizing the DAO or the economy

Not only is this proposal a fair middle ground, but it also importantly shows that the team cares about the community!

[mystic pulsar]

IIP-74 Refund for Unused Fuel Purchased Below Minimum Rail

I approve this proposal.

It's clear that the community strongly supports a refund and I think it's the right thing to do. There was a lot of back and forth and discussion around the pros and cons, this is a good compromise between them.

[signal swallow]

IIP-74 Refund for Unused Fuel Purchased Below Minimum Rail

I approve this proposal.

Now this might seem like a great solution on the surface, but there is one core reason I have been hesitant about this proposal.

My main concern here is that it rewards speculators for making a poor bet on the ecosystem, as it was clear that this system was deeply flawed and needed a major overhaul. Anyone who was buying fuel that they couldn't spend in a single lifetime was betting on it being advantageous for them. That being said it I don't blame anyone for trying to beat the flawed system and capture as many cheap Illuvials as possible, its the smart thing to do, but I don't love the idea of rewarding this setup with an ETH refund.

That being said, this proposal is exciting for 1 reason in particular. Returning Illuvium to a beautiful clean slate. The Illuvium DAO doesn't need a giant anvil hanging over its head as we revamp and fix the entire economy from where it stands today. I am excited we can make so many in the community happy and whole, take a lot of cheap fuel out of the ecosystem and get ready for the next phase of Illuvium on equal footing.

But this has 1 giant caveat I need to make abundantly clear. This is a one time thing. Illuvium made a mistake with its strategy and is reimbursing one of the best communities in Web 3 Gaming for this mistake, but this shouldn't ever be necessary or expected again in the future.

[green magnet]

IIP-74 Refund for Unused Fuel Purchased Below Minimum Rail

I approve this proposal.

I strongly dislike that this is an ETH refund and not just a bonus of additional fuel. My opinion is that giving out ETH refunds to people who speculated on the future value of assets is a slippery slope and 100% a losing game for everyone involved.

The reason I am approving this is because of the delay in implementation negatively impacting the community so heavily. Maintaining trust with people is the most important thing. It's not the project's responsibility to reward people who speculated on an asset and had the value of their speculation go down - that's general market dynamics and risk everyone here takes every day. However, it IS our responsibility to quickly address design issues which is what the fuel overhaul and EP-1 was approved to do. This provides a balanced solution where players, fuel speculators, and landowners are all considered in a reasonable way.

[covert horizon]

[IMC] IIP-74 Refund for Unused Fuel Purchased Below Minimum Rail

I approved this proposal.

I appreciate @sharp nebula for starting the thread and the community for contribution to the discussions
https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1346770169871073311

1. There have been very strong reactions from the community regarding the implementation of EP-1.

2. The delay in implementing EP-1 caused fuel prices to drift much lower than they were when the proposal was initially passed in the first week of December 2024. This resulted in a controversial conversion rate of 1:89, meaning those who purchased fuel earlier are more heavily penalized.

3. There have been discussions about adjusting the conversion rate to a lower number to better reflect prices from early December.

4. A refund appears to be widely supported by the community and may offer a neutral solution.

5. The advantage of purchasing fuel at much lower prices in the weeks leading up to the implementation of EP-1 would be lost.

6. Currently, the DAO holds 96 ETH in its wallets, which is enough to cover the refund.

7. In my opinion, the proposal offers a very good deal for landowners: the DAO is effectively paying for their unused fuel.

[livid spear]

[ICC] IIP-74 Refund for Unused Fuel Purchased Below Minimum Rail

I approved the proposal.

Not gonna make this longer than necessary: As stated on snapshot, I saw a ton of positivity around it. Barely any downvotes so i upvoted it.

I do have concerns about the fact that we do a refund. It will have to be a one-time thing. No more refunds in the future unless major exploits take place.

[frosty forge]

**[IMC] **IIP-74 Refund for Unused Fuel Purchased Below Minimum Rail

There were a lot of reservations when this proposal was brought to the table and the council explored several paths to take. The issue of it being paid in ETH was one reservation as it felt like it would set a precedent. Refund in fuel was brought up but ultimately going with ETH prevailed as the council was convinced that this path was necessary to correct an unintended consequence.

Ultimately, this needed to happen to bring trust back to the project, do right with the community, and allow the economy to right the ship so to speak.

Just to be clear, we see this scenario as a one-off and should not be considered as a precedent. Any future cases should be evaluated based on its own.

[sonic pawn]

I approve GCCP-4: Reduce Council Salary & Restore IMC Structure
(44 upvotes / 6 downvotes)

The reduction in council salaries makes sense given the current state of the project and fits with the broader cost-saving measures. The adjusted compensation still offers a decent incentive for capable candidates who genuinely want to contribute

As for decentralization, removing the guaranteed Labs seat from the IMC is, in my opinion, the right move. While overall sentiment is very positive on the proposal, this particular point has sparked mixed reactions. I believe requiring Labs to earn a seat through elections, like everyone else, better reflects the DAO’s values

If a Labs member isn’t elected, they can still attend IMC meetings to provide input and share the team’s perspective. The only change is they wouldn’t have voting power

If one is elected, it at least reduced the impact of Labs’ large vILV stake on the outcome

[signal swallow]

GCCP-4 Reduce Council Salary & Restore IMC structure

I approve this proposal.

Although it would have been nice to see council pay drop even further than this, the proposal strikes a nice balance between fair compensation for council members, incentive to draw in revenue for the DAO and an overall reduction in payment to better align with the cost cutting Labs has had to endure.

As many have said before, the councils come with a variety of risks, and ensuring competent individuals run for election is important to keep things running smoothly. This change to the payment structure helps mitigate any downsides to overly reducing council compensation and reduces the overall spend from the treasury by 3 times.

I am also happy to see the return to 5 elected members on the Illuvium Council. However without a Labs representative the councils role would become considerably more difficult. I hope that if Labs doesn't have an elected member then they should provide a permanent unelected individual to sit on every council meeting.

[eager carbon]

GCCP-4: Reduce Council Salary & Restore IMC Structure

I approve this proposal.
Community Sentiment: Very Positive
45 Upvotes, 6 Downvotes at the time of posting

This proposal aims to align the Council compensation more closely with the current state of the project and the goal of reducing burn as much as possible.
I’m glad that a scalable system has been put in place that aims to return to the old compensation values once Illuvium roughly breaks even.

Removing the guaranteed Illuvium Labs council spot from the IMC decentralizes the project further, which is a good thing.
It’s very unlikely that a Labs members won’t be elected into a council position, but if that does happen, Labs should appoint a permanent liaison to the IMC.

[tawdry ledge]

GCCP-4: Reduce Council Salary & Restore IMC Structure

I approve this proposal

There is a clear movement within both the community and the team to reduce the base compensation for the council. Initially, there were discussions around eliminating council pay altogether and transitioning to a fully holder-led DAO. However, that approach presented several pitfalls. The most significant, in my view, is the impact on public perception.

When other DAOs are increasing compensation for their leadership, it can reflect poorly on us if we remove or significantly reduce ours. In many failed DAOs, one of the final stages is the complete removal of leadership compensation—something that can signal decline rather than strength.

That said, a reduction in base pay can help extend the project's financial runway and align with recent cost-cutting measures taken within the Labs team. Introducing a performance-based revenue bonus system will still attract high-quality candidates to participate in future council nominations.

This proposal is an important step toward ensuring the long-term sustainability and credibility of the project.

[daring tendon]

GCCP-4: Reduce Council Salary & Restore IMC Structure

I approve this proposal. We've made some big strides getting costs down across the entire project. This is another step in the right direction.

I still think we will have some great talent applying in the next epoch.

[frosty forge]

GCCP-4: Reduce Council Salary & Restore IMC Structure

I declined this proposal as there was no revisions options.

I have no issues with lowering of the stipend for council. I would have preferred that we eliminated the ICC role and just lumped up the responsibilities to IMC (and possibly shared some of the community work with moderators). If the intention of this proposal was to lower pay then having to remove 5 headcounts would have been more efficient and less conflict amongst council members. But that is for a separate discussion I suppose.

The main reason why I declined (wanted revisions) is because of the other riders in this proposal which shouldve been proposed separately, namely:

1. Removing the dedicated seat for Labs appointee; and
2. Providing a complex and unnecessary computation for the additional stipend for council members

Removing dedicated seat for labs appointee

This seems a step back. Its been awhile but Kieran didnt run for Illuvinati council until the 4th epoch. The first 3 came from the community and there were a lot of growing pains with it since there was no one from labs attending and providing needed information. Both the council and the community wanted Kieran in the meetings and when Gov v2 was introduced, the seat was reserved to solidify the necessity of having Lab inputs both for voting and sharing of information.

As an unintended consequence, this freed up the community to actually vote for others rather than reserving their vILV for Kieran to be elected. Additionally, the labs appointee would not be receiving stipend which helped save the DAO ilv as well.

Another issue brought in by this proposal is to negate the "other" labs employee who may have ran and came in 2nd to another labs employee. Having a labs appointee and just introducing a ban on any labs employee from running for council would be much simpler. Otherwise you may get a scenario where the top 2 or even 5 are all labs employee voted in by the DAO but we would then skip the 2 to X until we get to someone who is not a labs employee which pretty much goes against the will of the DAO voting.

Lastly, I firmly believe that it is important that Labs has a voice and a vote in our decision-making body. Labs would have intimate knowledge in the limitations, timeline restrictions or even technological blockers pertaining to proposals coming from the community. There are 4 other seats in the IMC. Decentralization is still maintained as each vote is equal.

Complex Computation for Stipend

The clauses pertaining to this seems to over-complicate things. Pay should be standard no matter the project-state during the epoch. Here Finance needs to compute the "revenue" which means each month the pay of council varies. This should have been a static amount and if there are good reasons to increase the pay then another GCCP would be merited.

That being said, this proposal already passed and it is what is. These new changes comes into effect this election and we will see the fruits of this proposal come into play. If there is a need to make changes then the DAO will act accordingly.

[covert horizon]

[IMC] GCCP-4: Reduce Council Salary & Restore IMC Structure

I have approved this proposal.

I would like to thank the community and council members for their tremendous support.

1. The community has been discussing the reduction of council salaries since the beginning of this epoch.

2. The primary reasons for maintaining non-zero pay include attracting competent nominees, mitigating potential personal liability risks, and maintaining council effectiveness.

3. A low base salary, combined with performance-based incentives and a cap on total compensation, offers a balanced remuneration model: modest during low-revenue periods and scalable as revenue grows, while keeping pay within reasonable limits.

4. The savings from the salary reduction justify the addition of a fifth elected IMC member, thereby restoring full decentralization.

5. A Labs representative will still be required to attend IMC meetings if no Labs member is elected.

6. I believe governance proposals can include multiple topics, as seen in IIP-32 (Gov v2) and IIP-42 (Gov v3). In hindsight, it would probably be better to modify or append the title with "Gov v3.1" or "Gov v4" to avoid confusion.

[sonic pawn]

ICCP-22: Safety Pool Threshold Increase from $5M to $10M

I approve this proposal

Generally positive sentiment with 39 👍 & 6 👎

I’d like to thank the community for contributing to the discussion around this proposal and special shout out to @limpid rover for his contribution 👏

I agree with the general sentiment that extending the runway through the Safety Pool by pausing future RevDis up to $5M makes sense in our current situation. What matters most right now is successfully launching our games and reaching a point where we can sustain ourselves. We’re not there yet, and our runway is counted in months. Pausing RevDis can help with this and also improve our position for the upcoming raise, as it shows stronger financial discipline

Some valid concerns were brought up during the discussion, but I feel most have been addressed:

1. “Big hit on ilz after all that happened” → The landholders’ outstanding debt from IIP-54 and ICCP-17 should be paid within the next couple of weeks

2. “We need more data and information to decide” → A burn report has since been released

3. “This removes one of the few utilities left for ILV” → Staking V3 is coming soon

When we originally discussed this in the Community Sub-Council, we considered asking for a revision that would exempt ILZ RevDis. However, since the current debts will soon be paid off, I now believe the proposal is fine as it stands

I would still like the IMC to consider the recommendations mentioned in the thread when approving

[quasi glade]

ICCP-22: Safety Pool Threshold Increase from $5M to $10M

I approve this proposal:

As a prudent and forward-looking measure to secure Illuvium’s long-term stability.

Sometimes, we must put on our own oxygen mask first — strengthening the Safety Pool is exactly that. It’s a safeguard that ensures the project’s resilience during uncertain times.

Financially, there must be a minimum threshold that the Safety Pool should never fall below. The project’s sustainability depends on it. Illuvium already gives so much to the ecosystem without always receiving an equivalent return.

Our financial strategy heavily relies on player activity across Illuvium Beyond, Zero, Arena, and Overworld (MMO). This makes consistent funding essential, and the Safety Pool is one of the key tools to maintain that balance.

The MMO will be the ultimate test — a major opportunity to attract new players and investors. Having a strong Safety Pool ensures we can seize that moment with confidence.

Decentralization doesn’t mean a lack of prudence; it means shared responsibility. Strengthening the Safety Pool is a wise, collective step toward protecting Illuvium’s future.

[deep tendon]

ICCP-22: Safety Pool Threshold Increase from $5M to $10M

I approve this proposal

I was on the Strategy Sub-Council when we voted to change the original safety pool from 15m to 5m so I don't take this move back up to 10m lightly. At the time we were in a good place with runway at had secured a $10m raise.

It was time to look back into raising the safety pool for the longterm success of Illuvium. The community understands that if Illuvium doesn't make it this was all a waste and we all suffer so doing what needs to be done to keep Illuvium afloat is the best option.

We have promising future, even over the next 3 to 6 months I expect revenue to increase and new products to drive it. Marketing has picked up and some of that early hype is coming back.

I like forward to releasing this safety pool back to investors as originally planned, but for now the safety pool needs to be in place as that safety net.

[cobalt cedar]

ICCP-22: Safety Pool Threshold Increase from $5M to $10M

I approve this proposal:

Illuvium’s long-term success ultimately depends on delivering high-quality, enjoyable games. When we achieve that, meaningful and sustainable revenue will naturally flow into the DAO. While there have been delays in the past, the past six months have clearly demonstrated consistent focus and delivery of increasingly polished products.

Raising the Safety Pool threshold reinforces confidence among all stakeholders (investors, players, and contributors) by ensuring the DAO has the financial resilience needed to reach its goals. Should we later determine that such reserves are no longer necessary, those funds can always be redistributed to stakers.

My priority is to safeguard the interests of community members, and I believe this adjustment strikes the right balance between financial prudence and long-term growth for everyone involved.

It was not easy for me to support including Illuvium Zero fuel revenue in this measure, considering the significant impact landowners have already experienced. However, after thoughtful discussion with other council members, I agreed that if we are to pause revenue distribution in favor of the Safety Pool, it is only fair and consistent that the decision applies equally to all beneficiaries.

[mystic pulsar]

ICCP-22: Safety Pool Threshold Increase from $5M to $10M

I approve this proposal.

It is clear the community is in favor of this, and I am in favor of taking realistic steps to ensure the longevity of our project. It does us no good to go through years of building and reflecting only to fail because we didn't prioritize operational stability.

I do realize that Illuvium Zero keeps getting beat up, but I remain firmly in the camp that Zero's best chance for survival and ROI is for the broader Illuvium ecosystem to be successful.

[covert horizon]

ICCP-22: Safety Pool Threshold Increase from $5M to $10M

Vote: Decline

Rationale:

1. I understand the motivation behind this proposal to strengthen the DAO’s runway and financial safety. However, the current level of revenue remains very low, which means that even if we raise the safety pool threshold, it will take a very long time to reach that amount.

2. Increasing the threshold again sends an bad signal that revdis is a meme. We already implemented it once, repeating it risks undermining confidence in ILV's utility.

3. From a practical standpoint, our burn rate is $450K per month. The revenue to help with runway is too small to justify the potential damage to token sentiment and the broader community narrative.

4. What we truly need is a new capital raise or alternative funding mechanism, not the elimination of revdis that was designed to reward long-term believers in the project.

[willow moss]

ICCP-22: Safety Pool Threshold Increase from $5M to $10M

I approve this proposal:

My rationale for writing this proposal and voting to pass it:

1. I authored the Safety Pool, which was implemented to act as a financial buffer, ensuring our project remains stable and resilient in tough market conditions.

2. Why We Need to Boost It: Our current revenue and overheads show the existing pool isn’t enough. The $5m extension will give us the financial buffer needed.

3. A stronger Safety Pool sets us up to nail big product launches, like the MMO lite in development which will be the driving force behind revenue growth and create serious long-term value for the DAO.
   

4. Increasing the Safety Pool will give the team some level of flexibility around a capital raise.

[eager carbon]

ICCP-22: Safety Pool Threshold Increase from $5M to $10M

I approve this proposal.

Community sentiment has been very positive, with 48 upvotes and 7 downvotes at the time of posting.
It’s great to see that the community continues to stand behind the project as always.

Similar to real-world scenarios—where, for example, a company that isn’t generating profit withholds dividends to avoid harming itself—the same principle applies here.

From a personal perspective, I still have a substantial amount of ILV tokens staked, and in the long term, I believe it’s clearly better for stakers’ investments to support the project by giving up “a few bucks” now.
As a collective, we raise a significant amount that helps extend our runway and gives us more flexibility regarding a potential raise.

If we were to run out of time, we’d be forced to raise at a disadvantage.
With this decision, we gain more control and breathing room moving forward.

[sharp nebula]

ICCP-22: Safety Pool Threshold Increase from $5M to $10M

Vote: Decline

Possible Advantages:

• Extending the Safety Pool would strengthen the project’s financial buffer and provide more flexibility ahead.
• A stronger treasury position could improve fundraising leverage and signal financial discipline to potential investors.

Possible disadvantages/risks:

1. Reputational Damage to Revdis
   Revenue distributions are a central part of Illuvium’s value proposition. Repeatedly pausing them (even for legitimate financial reasons) sends a signal to the market that revdis can be halted at any time. This weakens confidence in the mechanism, undermines token credibility, and risks discouraging long-term holders and potential new participants.

2. Fairness Concerns for Landholders
   Land was never originally intended to be part of the revdis system and is still only partially integrated, since land distributions exclude certain revenue streams (e.g., physical products and DEX fees). With DEX fees expected to be a major part of future revenue, landholders will already receive a smaller share relative to stakers. Including them in a blanket pause adds further imbalance and creates a clear governance misalignment between stakeholder groups.

3. Unrealistic Time Horizon to Fill the Pool
   Current monthly revenue sits at around $6–10K (outside of occasional spikes like beyond sales). At this rate, reaching an additional $5M in the safety pool could take years, making this effectively an indefinite pause on distributions. That’s a much heavier consequence than what the headline proposal might suggest and would likely erode trust in the system over time.

While I fully support the goal of maintaining financial stability, I believe this specific approach creates more long-term harm than benefit. The reputational damage to revdis, the fairness issue for landholders, and the impractical timeline to fill the pool all outweigh the short-term security gain.

[daring tendon]

I approve ICCP-22. The intention of the revenue distribution system has always been to reward token holders when the protocol generates strong revenue. From the beginning, it was understood that if Labs required additional funding, the DAO would bring forward a proposal to adjust the percentage of the revenue distribution.

This change does not remove revenue distribution, it simply adjusts the split for a period of time to ensure the long-term sustainability of the project. It makes little sense to pay out revenue when we have not yet reached a point of being cash-flow positive. Increasing the safety pool to $10M provides the stability needed to continue building while still maintaining future distributions.

This does not mean we will not pursue a capital raise, it simply increases the amount of revenue available to support operations in the meantime.

[sonic pawn]

IIP-75 Illuvial Collection

Strong community support with the thread scoring 35-0 and IIP 28-0 for the 👍 / 👎

As the Sponsor, I approve this proposal

This proposal finally start to give the illuvials the utility they’ve been missing since launch. With the pro scene growing and the ecosystem loop about to kick in, this is the right moment to introduce a system that rewards ownership, commitment, and long-term engagement

The Collection leaderboard is a simple, scalable way to link illuvial strength and diversity to in-game benefits without placing direct $ cost on the DAO. Multipliers tied to battle pass rewards and raffle tickets create an ongoing incentive to improve collections while staying fully non-monetary. It’s a clean first step before deeper illuvial utility comes online

The community shared a wide range of feedback. Many want this system to eventually push further with more cosmetic rewards, seasonals, leaderboard-tied exclusives, and even long-term economic integration. I agree with that direction. But I also believe this softer, indirect version is the appropriate place to start given Season 1’s F2P focus. We can iterate later and layer in bigger incentives once the base system is live

This proposal gives players something meaningful right now, aligns with the goal of preparing for Leviathan/MMO progression, and begins giving illuvial utility in a measured way. It also helps bridge the gap between collection, gameplay, and future economic loops

---

IIP-76 Illuvial Collection Tree

Strong community support with the thread scoring 18-1 and IIP 35-0 for the 👍 / 👎

As the Key Contributor, I approve this proposal

This proposal is essentially the “upgraded” version of the first illuvial Collection idea. The foundation is the same (reward players for collecting and progressing) but this one adds more structure and a clearer way to tie every game and systems back into a single ecosystem loop

At the end of the day, it comes down to how the IMC weighs the upside against the extra dev work. The core idea is to make illuvials the center of the universe, give players a long-term progression system that feels meaningful, and create a reward structure that scales with a growing playerbase instead

If the IMC feels the added complexity is worth the payoff, this is the version that can grow into a long-term pillar of the ecosystem. If not, the first proposal could be a simpler starting point

[cobalt cedar]

IIP-75 Illuvial Collection

I Approve

I support this proposal. Bringing additional utility to Illuvials through a simple, collection-style leaderboard, focused on non-monetary rewards, is a smart and valuable addition to the ecosystem. The community feedback already shows strong potential for this system to expand and evolve organically over time.

That said, I believe it’s essential that we remain laser-focused on Illuvium’s core objectives: delivering the MMO, advancing Arena, and completing a robust mobile experience. These pillars are what will unlock new revenue streams and strengthen the existing ones. Any added features, including this one, should complement and not distract from those primary goals.

.
.
.

IIP-76 Illuvial Collection Tree

I Approve

The expanded Illuvials Collection system adds long-term goals for collectors, competitors, and casual players alike, which strengthens engagement without relying on ILV emissions. It deepens the Illuvial identity across the whole ecosystem and introduces meaningful, scalable rewards that players will genuinely enjoy chasing. When compared to the other proposal it feel a bit more complex yet it provides much greater depth.

That said, I believe it’s essential that we remain laser-focused on Illuvium’s core objectives: delivering the MMO, advancing Arena, and completing a robust mobile experience. These pillars are what will unlock new revenue streams and strengthen the existing ones. Any added features, including this one, should complement and not distract from those primary goals.

[deep tendon]

**IIP-75 Illuvial Collection

I Approve**

**IIP-76 Illuvial Collection Tree

I Approve**

Both of these proposals seek to increase the utility and value of the core Illuvium collection of Illuvials as well as increase the user experience. Not only is this good for the community, but also good for Illuvium and the future of the project.

I'm approving not necessarily because I believe either of these is the only way move forward, but because the community is behind the idea of bringing more utility and value to Illuvials. I think whether or not this passes through the IMC it will show the IMC and Labs the community is serious about improving this aspect of Illuvium and when the time is right something will be done.

[mystic pulsar]

IIP-75 Illuvial Collection

Approve

IIP-76 Illuvial Collection Tree

Approve

Both of these proposals bring much needed utility to our NFTs. Lots of people share a "collector mindset" and are completionists. IIP-75 is more of a basic foundational step whereas IIP-76 is a more fleshed out version. My personal belief aside, both have strong community support so I vote to bring it to the IMC and Labs to determine the best strategic path forward.

[quasi glade]

IIP-75 Illuvial Collection — ***Approve ***

I fully support the idea of an Illuvial Collection.
It’s a logical evolution for our ecosystem: it strengthens the value of Illuvials, encourages long-term progression, and creates a new point of attachment for players, whether they’re competitors or collectors.

A leaderboard based on collection quality — TPI, levels, tiers, and potentially finishes — becomes a powerful tool to boost engagement, while opening the door to flexible and sustainable rewards such as multipliers, cosmetics, titles, or other seasonal incentives.

This kind of system builds a natural bridge between collection, competition, and preparation for Leviathan/MMO. It adds meaningful depth without hurting the F2P experience, and it encourages players to gradually invest in their assets.

In short, it’s a strong foundation to improve retention, reward collectors, and prepare the future of the game.

IIP-76 Illuvial Collection Tree — **Approve **

Illuvial Collection 2.0 is clearly a step in the right direction.
It brings real, tangible value back to Illuvial NFTs by rewarding progression, rarity, and long-term collection effort. With clear stages — completion, TPI, levels, and color variations — the system naturally boosts the utility and desirability of every NFT.

And strategically, giving more value to Illuvials increases trading activity, which in turn boosts fees. Over the medium and long term, that’s a smart move for the entire ecosystem: more engagement, more transactions, and stronger economic sustainability.

A solid foundation for reinforcing long-term value across all game modes and preparing Illuvium for the next phase of growth.

[covert horizon]

[IMC] IIP-75 Illuvial Collection

Vote : Decline

1. I understand the intention to incentivize demand for illuvials.

2. I do not see significant demand growth from fuel sales or trading fee due to market condition, other than providing some exit liquidity to existing holders via leaderboard rewards.

3. I do not agree with the reward multiplier system. For me it's just inflating numbers.

4. I believe Labs need to focus on delivering the vertical slice.

IIP-76 Illuvial Collection Tree

Vote : Decline

1. I understand the intention to incentivize demand for illuvials.

2. I do not see significant demand growth from fuel sales or trading fee due to market condition, other than providing some exit liquidity to existing holders via leaderboard rewards.

3. The tree system seems too complicated. We should not be trying to play Path of Exile with the collection.

4. I believe Labs need to focus on delivering the vertical slice.

Both proposals need dev effort to design and implement. imo we need to focus on the vertical slice.

[eager carbon]

IIP-75 Illuvial Collection

I decline this proposal.
Community Sentiment: Extremely Positive
28 upvotes, 1 downvote at the time of posting.

I agree with the premise of these two proposals.
Since both proposals cover the same topic, one of them will have to be declined.
The reason I am declining this one is that it focuses too heavily on the leaderboard aspect, whereas I believe the core value lies in the collection/album portion of the idea, which IIP-76 covers better.

---

IIP-76 Illuvial Collection Tree

I vote for revision of this proposal.
Community Sentiment: Extremely Positive
36 upvotes, 1 downvote at the time of posting.

As mentioned above, I think the idea is strong, but the specifics should be left to Illuvium.
To ensure that, this proposal should be revised as a GFP rather than an IIP.

[sharp nebula]

I’ve generally felt since launch in 2024 that we’ve been missing a real collection/progression system. We need something that triggers the urge to collect every Illuvial and then continue improving that collection, whether that’s with higher TPI, holos/dark-holos, or both. I like the structure outlined in the tree system from IIP-76, but I’m also open to other approaches.
I'm also of the opinion, that it would have a massive impact for the MMO-Lite (not VS) launch and it should be developed to be ready for that.

Since both proposals cover essentially the same topic, one of them naturally has to be declined.

---

IIP-75 | Illuvial Collection

I decline this proposal.

I’m declining this one because it leans too heavily on the angle, which I don’t think is enough on its own to drive meaningful long-term engagement, which is addressed in a better way in IIP-76.

---

IIP-76 | Illuvial Collection Tree

I vote for revision of this proposal.

As mentioned above, I think the core idea here is strong, but the exact implementation details and point in time when it will be developed should remain in the hands of the Illuvium team. For that reasons, this should be revised as a GFP rather than an IIP.

[willow moss]

IIP-75: Illuvial Collection

I decline this proposal.

We have two proposals for the same thing just different method and while agree with the premise of these two proposals, I personally prefer IIP-76
Since both proposals cover the same topic, one of them will have to be declined.

IIP-76: Illuvial Collection Tree

Revision

I recommend revising this proposal to a GFP.

Otherwise I approve of the general direction I do think some of this should be ironed out with labs.

[daring tendon]

IIP-75: Illuvial Collection

I decline this proposal. We are reworking rewards. Will add this idea into the discussion and then include it in the new proposal labs is working on.

IIP-76 Illuvial Collection Tree

Same thing here. We're reworking rewards. will add this into the discussion.

[sonic pawn]

GFP-3 Illuvial Collection Tree

I approve this proposal. This exactly IIP-76 but under GFP title so that it is clear that the exact implementation details are up to Labs

Here was my rationale for the previous Illuvial Collection IIP's:

#📯〕council-chambers message

[limpid ruin]

GFP-3 Illuvial Collection Tree

I approve this proposal.

As a creature-collection IP, Illuvium will benefit greatly from a long-term progression system centered on Illuvial ownership. This concept effectively ties collecting, gameplay, and progression together. Whether Labs implements this as a tree or a similar system, it provides a scalable foundation that can be leveraged across all current and future games.

[deep tendon]

**GCCP-5 Temporary Pause of The Illuvium Community Council

I approve this proposal.**

I've been a big proponent of the ICC and I have served on it for multiple epochs. In past epochs the ICC has been 100% necessary, but this past epoch we've seen a steep decline in community engagement and proposals. At this time I think the IMC can handle those responsibilities, but I like that this proposal allows for the ICC to be reinstated when community engagement returns to past levels.

**GDD-1 Illuvium Deathmatch

I approve this proposal.**

This new game should be light on the dev resources while giving owners of Illuvials a reason to come back to Illuvium because of the new utility. This has the chance to bring players back and drive some revenue while the MMO and Arena updates are being worked on.

[limpid ruin]

GCCP-5 Temporary Pause of The Illuvium Community Council

I approve this proposal.

While pausing the ICC is unfortunate, it reflects the current reality of our ecosystem. Community size and governance participation have declined, making the existing ICC structure operationally unnecessary for now.

The IMC can manage responsibilities in the interim. This should be a temporary consolidation, not a permanent rollback. The ICC should be reinstated once there is measurable growth in community engagement and governance participation.

GDD-1 Illuvium Deathmatch

I approve this proposal.

The few Web3 games that have survived and continue to gain traction incorporate some form of risk-based or wagering mechanics into their ecosystems. As a mobile-accessible web game, it has strong potential to tap into that demand segment while generating revenue, increasing Illuvial utility, and introducing a meaningful burn mechanism. Since this won't be developed in Unreal, the MMO development should remain unaffected.

[sonic pawn]

GCCP-5 – Temporary Pause of The Illuvium Community Council

I’m voting yes on this. With how much community and governance activity has slowed down, keeping the ICC running right now doesn’t really make sense

The IMC can comfortably handle the current workload without anything slipping through the cracks. The key part for me is that this is a pause, not a shutdown, we keep the option to bring the ICC back when the community, proposal flow, and overall market pick back up again

At that point, having a dedicated community council will matter a lot more than it does in this low-activity phase

GDD-1 – Illuvium: Deathmatch

I’m also voting yes on this. While most attention (and dev time) is rightly going into the MMO, this kind of mode is relatively quick to build and has a ton of upside

It leans into risk/gambling mechanics, works on mobile/browser, and finally gives real utility to our Illuvials, including the “shitty" ones

If it hits, it can bring players back, generate revenue, and create a new reason to care about your collection. All without seriously slowing down the mmo

[willow moss]

I approve these proposals.

GCCP-5: Temporary Pause of The Illuvium Community Council

I am voting yes on pausing the ICC. Lower engagement makes the current structure redundant. The IMC can handle duties temporarily, but the ICC should return once community activity recovers.

GDD-1: Illuvium Deathmatch

I am voting yes on the GDD for the Illuvium Deathmatch. Risk-based/wagering mechanics are proven drivers in successful Web3 games. This adds revenue and utility without slowing down MMO development due to small dev time and at little cost to the DAO.

[minor oyster]

The Council chambers is permissioned for the council members ONLY to post . Here they will debate the topics that are called upon to vote.

[kind kindle]

Hello friends

[polar bridge]

Hey everyone, pleasure to be serving next to such esteemed councilors.

[daring tendon]

Hey all. Please find attached my proposal for the BLBP. I'm happy to jump on a call to discuss it with you if you have any further questions. Otherwise, happy deliberating.
https://snapshot.org/#/ilvgov.eth/proposal/QmcfFCqmurajc2wfhLT4Wdm7QpDjEU9YViQD9oHGCNvZb6

[polar bridge]

Not too concerned about doing it in ETH. Especially when you weigh up the long term potential value of ILV. And as you say stable coins will carry the same problems.

So I think ETH for simplicity sake is fine.

Date and time makes sense to me as well.

A. It matches roadmap and what we've been talking about this whole time. This will also give plenty of time for the price to settle where it needs to, for people to find their entry point, and time to consolidate ETH bags further if needed.

We could extend time, but once again as you say Ami, ETH moment is unpredictable, which is just the nature of crypto.

I think Kieran has proposed a well balanced proposition. Taking into account that many of the factors depend on the volatility of the market and ETH, which are things that are out of our hands.

In giving a good solid 3 day window, doing it on balancer, and also including NFT rewards, I think that covers most bases.

[kind kindle]

Agree with most of what has been said here. BLPs, while not perfect, do offer perhaps the best/most fair way to get price discovery

Also like this feature @daring tendon "This applies only to those who hold all of their ILV purchases after the sale concludes until the NFTs redeem window is closed."

thoughts on doing NFT drops as opposed to a single one? this would reward active holders, long term ILV believers

[daring tendon]

I will write another proposal for NFT drops moving forward. My idea is to reward the early purchasers (those in the bal sale) plus continue to reward active holders post the BLP with additional exclusive drops. Right up until game launch.

[polar bridge]

Was thinking on this today and agree sir. I was thinking it's so important to reward the current community with things like this. It one of those "being in on the ground floor" things that I think really makes people feel like they found something special early.

[fleet storm]

Just voted yes on the proposal, I don't think many people have an issue with ETH as a unit of account in this ecosystem. I also think that BLPs are one of the best mechanisms in terms of trade-offs for launching liquidity.

Am I missing something or is snapshot not showing the names of the council members? in Synthetix governance it passes through your ens name.

[polar bridge]

Interested to see other councilors opinions on recent prop?

As stated in #governance I think the new proposed starting price of $50 is acceptable.

I believe the ILV teams reputation is reliable. Balancer will still remain the most fair option. And the proposers, Delphi Digital, also have a reputation thay doesn't need called into question.

$50 instead of 100 also helps reflect the recent dip in Crypto markets. This change will also imo help a better valuation be found quickly. Which will allow all community members time over the 3 days to find their entry.

The talk on the community seems to reflect this starting price as well, and I think the community and environment currated so far by all members and contributors is a healthy one. I fear not too many bad actors.

Would love to hear others thoughts on the matter though before casting a vote.

[fleet storm]

Unfortunately I missed the vote, I am offline on Sundays for sanity preservation and ended up having a discussion with Anton directly about the likely impacts of this earlier today. But I have been on calls all morning. So my main issue here was not having time to review and vote given the short timeframe. But I understand the urgency. After talking to a few different people I am honestly ambivalent about this, the higher starting price was intended to discourage gas wars etc, but I think there is still meaningful risk for bots even @ $50 so I don't think that it is going to impact price discovery significantly. The reality is that there is a lot of uncertainty and we have imperfect information but the difference between $50 and $100 as a starting point won't really be clear until we have seen how price discovery plays out. At the end of the day the price will find an equilibrium and there will be plenty of time between now and the actual launch for everyone to get exposure if they want to. If the price ends up over $100 then obviously both $50 and $100 were wrong but overall I think lowering it form $100 was probably prudent.

[polar bridge]

My final thoughts on the proposal that was recently passed.

First of all just wanted to give a huge thank you to all the community. So many of you were very active in this conversation and in this discussion over the proposal. Which is exactly what this governance system was designed for. Thank you all for your thoughts, views, opinions, and great points. It's why this community is thriving and one of the best in Discord. Period.

Just like the Illuvium game, this Illuvinati governance body is in its early days. We're going to encounter speed bumps, and things aren't going to be perfect. But we should all welcome these hiccups so we can learn for them, adjust, and evolve for the next proposal to come, and more importantly for the next election to come. Hopefully this machine will run better and better with each task given.

Like all you I'm incredibly excited for this sale starting tomorrow, and I can't wait to see the excitement in here and how it all unfolds. There will be plenty of time for you to find your price point, and I think we'll find equilibrium through balancer, and by the end of it hopefully most of us will be satisfied with our ILV bags.

Thanks again everyone for making history with us in this new approach to gaming, and don't lose sight of what an incredibly cool experiment we're all partaking of right now. We are currently building the foundation to how games will be run and structured in the future.

[torn marsh]

IIP-004 will be submitted shortly. If all council members could please take a look and discuss. Voting will be available for 72 hours.

[polar bridge]

I second and agree with what Ami has outlined above.

We hit a couple speed bumps with the first and second props. We learned much from those first two and I believe did a good job on this third prop. The debate was fierce at time in the governance channel and no stone was left unturned, which is necessary for a project of this magnitude and importance. And it's now archived and recorded in the channel for all to see and go through.

Compromises were made, ideas given, and eventually this prop was arrived at, which appeases most concerns and seems to be the best way forward for the game.

Once again, what we're doing here and the example we're setting for not only future councilors and props, but for the wider crypto gaming world in general is huge. And I believe the Illuvinati community and Illuvium in general is leading that charge admirably.

This prop also has my support, and good job everyone for putting forth their thoughts and energy to make this happen.

[torn marsh]

We had already begun work on the adjustments (in case it passed) and they are completed. We now just have the process of auditing it.

[torn marsh]

Congratulations to all.

[daring tendon]

@real thorn
@supple geode

Please DM me your ETH address for your voting NFT

[supple geode]

As the majority seems to be in favor of the proposal, I will vote yes.

I am not in favor of removing the liquidity just yet because we need it to be recognised by larger CEXs.

Farming Sushi tokens in the meantime is a great use of these SLP tokens. We should capitalize on this opportunity and use the funds to bring some new ideas to life.

[real thorn]

Aye, all good points by @ocean patrol and I agree to farm sushi until we have a better idea of what to do with them, maybe another proposal in future....

[fleet storm]

Hey everyone unfortunately I’m going to have to step down from the Council as I’m too focussed on Synthetix right now and don’t have the bandwidth to engage properly with Illuvium governance.

[real thorn]

Hey thanks for your contribution…. We all know you’re a busy man

[fleet storm]

I wasn’t planning to run for the second epoch tbh but I didn’t pull my nomination…

[supple geode]

Thank you Kain!

[minor oyster]

thanks for all your great help thus far mate, a lot goes on behind the scenes that the community just doesn't see, including your significant contribution to Illuvium!

[real thorn]

Well after much deliberation, and taking into account a lot of the community's sentiment as well as some of my supporters, I've voted yes on this most recent proposal for a lot of the reasons mentioned in #809220563397902346 itself and dating back to when I half way jokingly tweeted back at @daring tendon about makin this AXS flash pool. I think its the perfect user base to get over here especially since they can't stake their tokens as of yet.

[supple geode]

I will vote yes also as the community seems to agree with the proposal. I think it will be a great marketing move for a few ILV tokens. The timing after the XYZ pool will probably still be good also as a large portion of Axie players are looking elswhere right now due to server problems on their side. Let's be welcoming and show them how great our community is!

[daring tendon]

I have pinged him on tele @ocean patrol

[real thorn]

Just my thoughts on the other proposal that just went live... personally I'm on board to put flashpools on hold until new contract is audited and we can give XYZ their flashpool first.... any one objecting let me know your thoughts

[supple geode]

I voted to have flashpools halted as well while we wait for the new contract audit. As soon as it clears, we should do XYZ.

[supple geode]

IIP-008 concluded with 3 votes in favor of pausing the flashpools launches.

[supple geode]

IIP-009 concluded with 4 votes in favor of bringing Santiago in as the 5th council member until the end of this epoch.

[supple geode]

IIP-010 concluded with 5 votes in favor of building the mini-game as per Aaron's proposal.

[minor oyster]

ICCP-001 has just been submitted in #📰〕governance-news by fellow councilman Santiago. If all council members could please take a look and discuss the proposed Council Salary changes. Voting will be available for 72 hours. <@&814435151307866142>

[kind kindle]

I think this will send the right message to the community

Happy to discuss

[supple geode]

The right message?

Did someone say it was bad for council members to receive 10 ILV tokens per month of service?

Did someone say we were only doing it for the stipend?

It's a hard pill to swallow, seeing that Jeff and Stormi's dedication to listen and help the community for thousands of hours, day and night, would only be worth around 5k$ in the end. They reached the council position by listening and interacting with the community and this gives them the experience needed for a seat on the council and represent the community that voted them in.

They deserve their stipend fully and I will oppose to a change. Unless the community thinks otherwise?

If you want to decline your stipend to send the right message, you are free to do so but putting other council members in that position by proposing this without ever talking about it to the community or us is not the right way to proceed.

[void ingot]

I disagree with this proposal.

The loudest and most significant request from the community regarding the council is that they want to see a much more engaged and active council. I wholly agree with them. It was one of my strongest motivations to run in the first place. In previous epochs it did indeed seem like a "low workload" position for some councilmembers that seemingly never deliberated nor engaged other than to vote and sometimes, not even that. Whether or not that is true, that is all many of us saw. And those optics are not a great look for a DAO-first project.

I do not believe it is prudent to call for a reduction in salary based on the workload of past epochs. And even less so to assume the workload or hours contributed by the council members would remain the same in this epoch, and into the future.

The community and admin are putting forth structures and requirements for the council and are holding this epoch to a much higher standard than previous ones. The proposal to reduce salaries while at the same time increasing the requirements of the council members seems rather contradictory.

I do not understand the intention of this proposal. I've never viewed a seat on council to be adequately filled with anything less than a full-time committment and I would not have even bothered running if I could not give it that. Even if a council member chose to, or had to put in less time, I'd argue the responsibility of the position itself merits a level of compensation. To be one of 5 members of a DAO council that steers the direction of an incredibly valuable crypto/gaming project is an important position.

To date, I have not seen any significant outcry about the council's salary from the community whatsoever. Even an argument to change it from ILV to stablecoin is another point I'm not convinced of, simply because if ILV is increasing in price the value of the project is increasing and so increases the value of the council's duties.

Lastly, it is rather uncomfortable and feels "rugpully" to force a vote on this at the beginning of a new epoch with no prior public deliberation or discussion anywhere.

[fiery hemlock]

Let me start with two things first:

1) I am 100% against ICCP-1 and I will try to explain my reasoning below.

2) I would like to ask anyone who has even the tiniest thought of “greedy!” popping up in their head to take my arguments below into consideration with an open mind and, if necessary, even to check prior discussions in this Discord where I (and other current council members) clearly have shown that we take the side we deem best for the DAO, even if that at times means less profits for ourselves.

So I’d find it insulting and sad if this then would be ignored whenever a council member votes in a way that benefits them. Having the path that our community takes go into that kind of direction only means that we'll eventually end up with a council too scared to vote what they actually think is right just because they fear personal and even baseless attacks of greediness.

Now, I myself am against ICCP-1 because of the following reasons:

A) No proper discussion
This proposal comes out of nowhere, which to me is a huge issue in itself. Despite a few discussions in the past, there has been no indications whatsoever that the community wants or supports a change of the current stipend. We’ve had other discussions like the Balancer Sale NFTs that saw largely more activity and yet still didn’t lead to any proposal so far. So where does this proposal now come from?

Either, this comes from Santiago alone, which in my opinion would show a less optimal preparation for any kind of proposal. We even have a blog article describing in detail how actively participating in the governance of this DAO should look like and in there the following is even highlighted with a warning sign:

“⚠️ Before you begin, you should vet your idea. This will save you time. Ask the Illuvium community first if an idea is original to avoid wasting time on something that will be rejected based on prior research (searching the Internet does not always do the trick). It also helps to make sure the idea is applicable to the entire community and not just the author. Just because an idea sounds good to the author does not mean it will have the intended effect. The appropriate public forum to gauge interest around your IIP or ICCP is the Illuvium Discord.”

This should apply to everyone and not exclude a selective few. Now, I do think this was discussed by Santiago with someone already and considering the comments from Kieran / Aaron it seems to me that it at least was with members of the team / management. In this case the lack of community discussion would still apply though and I’d find the way that feedback was gathered then sub-optimal as well. If this is supposed to develop into a proper DAO, how can we support any form of “backroom politics”? It strips away any transparency and comes with the risk of people starting to suspect shady things happening behind the scenes.

B) Council work is supposed to change
Contrary to a change of the stipend, there has been a huge support and demand within the community to create more structure and transparency for the work of the council. In what world does it make sense to change the compensation for something at a time where you know the work that is expected for said compensation is going to increase/change, while you still have no idea how and by how much?

We should focus on actually getting the Governance running properly first before there can even be a realistic discussion about what a “fair compensation” would look like. I for one disagree for example with arguments like “this is a 10h per month job”. In my opinion there should be a lot more involvement by every elected council member, so there will be enough discussion ahead of us just to define the parameters of governance and the future expectations for council members.

C) Bad precedence
Springing this right after the election - and out of nowhere at that - sets a bad precedent for everything in the future. I still remain convinced that any changes to something that was clearly defined in the past only should happen if there is a clear advantage for the DAO, regardless of whether or not a negative impact would be felt by thousands or just a handful of people.

Where is this “clear advantage” in this proposal? No one can seriously argue that 150 ILV over three months (to compensate the people in charge of the protocol) holds back the growth of this DAO or somehow threatens the success of its projects in any way. On the contrary, I’d argue that setting such a precedent now could hurt the DAO because it will potentially keep amazing candidates from running in the first place. Those people aren’t necessarily running just for the money, but they might need the money if they would allocate this much of their time to the DAO and thus lack the hours to earn it elsewhere. If there is a fear of having this income suddenly taken away just after being “hired”, they won’t even run in the first place. And I’m bringing this up as someone who is NOT dependent on this stipend.

I also don’t accept the comparison made with IIP-004 where locked seed/team tokens were removed from yield farming. While this proposal surely affected more people negatively than ICCP-1 would, here there were clear advantages for the DAO - an important one of them being more decentralization, which quite apparently in the most recent election still is an issue (and would have been way worse if locked seed/team tokens would have gotten the majority of yield rewards so far).

D) I think paying Council stipends in ILV is better than USD
I’m not against discussing the stipend amount for future epochs and AFTER the discussions and proposals to structure the governance of the DAO have been completed, but even then I would still argue for a payment in ILV.

ILV is what most of us bought into so far. As the governance token it’s at the heart of everything and the council is literally steering the direction of it. I only think it’s right to also pay the stipend in ILV. I have no issues with lowering the amount of ILV for future epochs (and yes, despite that, I would still run again myself) but I would keep it in ILV because it also means there is more incentive to really be engaged and think about the growth of the DAO, rather than knowing you have your “salary” fix and how much you contribute is more or less irrelevant.

E) This is not traditional gaming
I see arguments all the time how play2earn is not traditional gaming, how the amount of money in this industry will be so much higher. So why then would we try to cut down the stipend of council members because of comparisons to centralized companies or the traditional gaming industry? If there is so much money that we can run around and already now proclaim “the biggest price pool in e-sports history” (which I think is a great marketing tool) why are we now discussing 10 ILV for a council member?

I would even flip this around and (now that I’m not a mod myself anymore) argue for a clear structure of the moderator system (including expectations etc.) and then have moderators rewarded for their efforts as well. Give them 1 ILV for every 6 months or so of helping the community out this way. If so much money is available, then we shouldn’t make the same mistakes so many traditional gaming companies do. And the fact is, long-term and healthy success of a game/company is through a solid foundation and community.

[supple geode]

After this day of back and forth with the community in #809220563397902346 I decided to vote No on this proposal. We should revisit this topic once we have a better idea of the new requirements and involvement required of the council members. I am open to make a change to the stipend but how this was presented is exactly what we don't want the governance to be. I believe we will make a better choice once we have more information and experience available to us. I also recognize that moderator duty and involvement in the community is not part of council duty and I was wrong about that. It was a bad argument. On that note, council members should be obligated to debate with the community within the governance channels and at a bare minimum, explain their decisions for every proposal publicly.

[supple geode]

I, Rahlord, hereby declare to vote “No” on ICCP-1, because it - among other things - lacks to follow the basic fundamentals of how a proposal should be prepared.

Furthermore, I hereby decline to accept any payment for this epoch whatsoever, to show my objection with the multiple accusations of greediness that were brought against me, even from a Co-Founder of this project.

I remain convinced that a certain amount of activity (including a written statement for every proposal, as well as engaging with the community in general) should be a requirement of every Council Member, and I plan to contribute to such a proposal within this epoch.

[fiery hemlock]

I, Stormi, hereby declare to vote “No” on ICCP-1, because it - among other things - lacks to follow the basic fundamentals of how a proposal should be prepared.

Furthermore, I hereby decline to accept any payment for this epoch whatsoever, to show my objection with the multiple accusations of greediness that were brought against me, even from a Co-Founder of this project.

I remain convinced that a certain amount of activity (including a written statement for every proposal, as well as engaging with the community in general) should be a requirement of every Council Member, and I plan to contribute to such a proposal within this epoch.

[void ingot]

I, Jeff, hereby declare to vote “No” on ICCP-1, because it - among other things - lacks to follow the basic fundamentals of how a proposal should be prepared.

Furthermore, I hereby decline to accept any payment for this epoch whatsoever, to show my objection with the multiple accusations of greediness that were brought against me, even from a Co-Founder of this project.

I remain convinced that a certain amount of activity (including a written statement for every proposal, as well as engaging with the community in general) should be a requirement of every Council Member, and I plan to contribute to such a proposal within this epoch.

[kind kindle]

I think we can learn from this process. The intention behind ICCP-1 came from a place where the community felt council members were compensated too much. When it was initially set, 10 ILV was a much smaller sum that what it is today. Since then, the Illuvium team and community has grown so much and we're just getting started. Having open, constructive discussions is what will make us an even stronger community. This proposal will not pass but I think we've identified areas to work on. Appreciate the open and transparent dialogue. Onwards and upwards.

[fiery hemlock]

Predating the current epoch and its heated discussions, several community members - including @void ingot, @supple geode and myself - saw a need for changes when it comes to the work and the requirements of council members. In the wake of the last few days, we now - after carefully evaluating a variety of arguments made - would like to present two drafts of changes and clarifications we’d deem beneficial for the health and longevity of this DAO.

These drafts, which we ask everyone to see as a means for discussion instead of mistaking it for rigid proposals we’re trying to force upon anyone, can be found in their own threads. We appreciate any interest in them and hope to see constructive feedback from both the community as a whole as well as our fellow council members @worldly charm and @kind kindle:

Draft for governmental changes: #886866436029554688

Draft for changes in regards to the creation of new proposals: #886867036788109312

[fiery hemlock]

Regarding: #809220563397902346 message

I hereby would like to voice my support for the council improvements proposal that was circulated by Kieran, and thank him for considering a variety of arguments made both here on Discord but also in conversations elsewhere.

I believe that this proposal is a good blend of different suggestions, and while I could see certain topics still worth discussing, I am convinced that it is much more beneficial for the DAO to have this proposal approved and to continue evaluating along the way, if any other changes might be worthwhile or even necessary.

Furthermore, I would like to use this opportunity to apologize in case anyone might have been offended or felt attacked by me in the recent debate. While I always try to voice my opinion in a calm and reasonable way, I am nothing but human as well and on top of that even one that is communicating here in a language that isn’t his native one.

So as much as I try, there surely have and will be wordings from my side that might come across more harshly than I would have liked myself or had intended, and if that ever is the case, please feel free to point it out to me, because the reason I wanted to be a part of this council was to contribute in a constructive way to the betterment of this DAO. I’m not interested in anything else as I - like probably everyone here - certainly could think of better things to spend my time on otherwise.

[fiery hemlock]

In regards to IIP-11 Council Vote for 4th Flash Pool I decided to vote for Enjin.

The Enjin ecosystem not only has a large amount of token holders but also consists of a community that most certainly is interested in gaming. Throughout the next months there are several interesting things supposed to happen for Enjin (=possible publicity) and considering our upcoming land sale, I'd see it as highly beneficial for the DAO to ensure that whatever flash pool we run now is directed towards token holders that don't need to be convinced of crypto gaming first.

Doing so increases the chances to see some of the newcomers that join through this flash pool to still jump into the land sale as well. A highly successful land sale would not only mean more revenue for the DAO, it also most surely would result in a lot of publicity for Illuvium considering the large sales volume and a much bigger marketing effect from its revenue distribution. This kind of publicity could have a huge impact on our growth towards open beta.

I'd like to add here, that this was a close call for me between Enjin, Link and continuing to pause until staking v2 (in order to avoid any bad publicity because of people who end up having a loss from the flash pool). Furthermore, I do not own any Enjin Coins myself at this point in time, so there was no personal financial bias involved in my voting decision.

[void ingot]

IIP-11 Council Vote for 4th Flash Pool

I am casting my vote for LINK.

My primary reason is the Illuvium community's strong support for LINK in the proposal discussions.

Some additional rationale for my decision:

• Chainlink's verifiable randomness function being integrated into the project(https://medium.com/illuvium/14-integrating-chainlinks-vrf-to-secure-fair-distribution-of-rare-nfts-ecd312046ed3)

• No significant staking opportunities for LINK marines currently

• Massive, well-established community

• Word-of-mouth opportunities from a very popular, 4 week long pool

My decision was very close between LINK and ENJ so I'd be glad to see ENJ in one of the future flash pools.

[supple geode]

IIP-11 Council Vote for 4th Flash Pool

I am voting LINK also because there was a strong support for it from the community.

Jeff exposed the bullet points on why it is a good choice.

As for the 5th flash pool, my vote would go to ENJ because it would be very close to the trailer release and bringing a flashpool to the ENJ gaming community would be a very good move.

[supple geode]

IIP-12 Illuvinati Council Improvements

I am voting yes. This proposal has been crafted with many inputs from the council, the community and the admins. I am confident that it will bring a nice improvement to the governance system. The requirements are as we envisioned them to be. Very satisfied and I am excited to put it to work.

[fiery hemlock]

IIP-12 Illuvinati Council Improvements

As already mentioned in a previous post here, despite seeing some topics worthy of additional discussion, I support the proposed changes to the work of the council because I deem it more beneficial to move forward with the consensus so far and to continue to evaluate if additional changes are necessary as we go on. After all, what the council was presented with now did include a lot of feedback from not only the community directly but also from conversations between the council and admins. As such, I voted yes on this proposal.

[void ingot]

IIP-12 Illuvinati Council Improvements

I am voting yes.

The guidelines and requirements that are established by this IIP are a step in the right direction for the DAO. Transparency and structure for the entire governance process should be celebrated.

This proposal has seen many drafts and been the subject of many lengthy deliberations both public and private so there is little else to mention that has not already been addressed. I am eager to see this passed, implemented, and eventually iterated upon.

[fiery hemlock]

IIP-13 Illuvatars

I decided to vote with "yes" on this proposal.

When looking at the teaser Kieran provided a while ago, personally I get super excited when thinking about having something similar as my avatar, and I know that many others feel the same way. Since I don't expect the Illuvatars to delay the main game in any significant way I see little downsides while they on the other hand not only provide a means for people to develop a stronger bond with the Illuvium brand but also act as an additional revenue driver for the DAO.

On top of that, since the first set surely will be released before launch, the Illuvatars can provide an angle for additional marketing in order to get Illuvium out there, and the inevitable secondary market trading will not only provide more revenue but also act as a great test for the IlluviDEX before it is flooded with Illuvials and other items from the main game.

Community posts have been mostly positive as well (what little there was aside from the positive reactions on the proposal post), so I was not made aware of any possible issues here either. The only concern that was brought up so far was about whether or not USD prices paid with ETH/sILV wouldn't be better here, and as I mentioned in #809220563397902346 , this was brought up by us early on already. Since the proposal already states though that the pricing itself will be determined by the council closer to the sale, I don't see a reason to reject this proposal and keep the team from moving further along with this.

Teaser by Kieran: #💬〕general message

[void ingot]

IIP-13 Illuvatars

I am voting yes.

While the Illuvatars project has replaced the original "mystery sale"(what could it have been?!), I think it's going to turn out to be a pretty unique way to represent a PFP in and out of the game. I'm looking forward to seeing what combinations people come up with and am excited to eventually equip in-game items to my Illuvatar. I'm also eager to introduce another opportunity to spend some sILV.

Regarding the recent proposal feedback it is fairly certain that the price(s) will be adjusted which will be no issue, as noted in the IIP itself.

However some additional changes to the loot boxes themselves may also be warranted if there continues to be enough support. From what I've seen, specifically the drop rate, the amount of tiers, or possibly the loot box mechanic itself could be changed. I definitely share the opinion that the higher tiered loot boxes should not have chance to yield low tier items. Paying for the highest tier box to yield a tier 1 is a particularly painful thought.

Whether these or any changes aside from the price will require a separate follow-up ICCP or not, I encourage the community to continue to provide feedback and consider alternative solutions in #809220563397902346

[supple geode]

IIP-13 Illuvitars

I vote yes, but the sale mechanic (lootbox mechanic and price) need to be changed as it was pointed out numerous time in the governance channel. I like the ideas that have been brought up and support them. I'll make sure to voice them during the next meeting so that we can modify them accordingly.

The Illuvitars can be worked on in the meantime and all the structure required for the sale also. This is why I vote yes now but under the condition that the sale mechanics will be changed.

Thanks for the feedback and please share any ideas!

Also is it now officially Illuvatar!? It should be Illuvitar to make sure we are not too close of Ilúvatar... 🤔

[fiery hemlock]

IIP-16 $sILV reimbursement

I decided to vote no on this proposal. This has not been a decision made lightly but instead is the result of following community sentiment closely while discussing the topic in a variety of settings, both inside and outside of the council.

While I feel for anyone that got hurt financially and unfairly by this issue because their actions were honest and free of malicious intent, the main goal as council member is still to ensure the longevity and success of this DAO. Setting a precedent here that opens the door for the DAO to refund crypto based losses AFTER it has been clearly stated to stay away from something, is a much bigger risk to the protocol - in my humble opinion. The Illuvium DAO cannot take responsibility for mistakes that people make with their own money unless the fault clearly lies on the side of the DAO. Anything else could create a never-ending drain of funds that quickly could end up severely damaging the protocol.

Furthermore, reimbursing people past the cut-off block would - without a doubt - also reward certain bad actors who deliberately were using the details of the announcement (knowing that anything up to the snapshot is going to be reimbursed) to profit of others who dismissed the idea of DYOR at a time where a pool suddenly dropped by 99%+.

Even more so, I wholeheartedly believe that paying out anything to people an hour past the snapshot would not actually result in a beneficial outcome for the DAO because it would only create even more rage and complaints from anyone who feels deserving of a refund but didn't make the "one hour past the snapshot cut". As soon as that door would be opened, where does one actually draw the line?

That's why I clearly say "no" to the use of DAO funds for reimbursement after the official announcement.

[real thorn]

IIP-16 $sILV Post Snapshot Reimbursement

I have decided to vote no on this proposal for multiple reasons. Community sentiment regarding this subject was one factor in the vote of no. I think the majority of the community felt no was the correct decision because they are the ones that have been here paying attention to the announcements as they come so the majority of them are unaffected by a post snapshot refund. Although I feel terrible for the people that lost money in this situation, I believe that part of decentralization (of crypto in general) is being responsible with your own money. People are still buying sILV today and then coming into the social channels for the first time and demanding a refund and for the team to delist sILV from Uniswap which shows a complete misunderstanding of how defi and decentralization works. If you’re going to to say we should be refunding up to an hour after the block cut off, why stop there why not 6 hours why not 24 hours? It’s a slippery slope that will for sure leave unhappy people somewhere whilst still awarding bad actors that bought post snap shot trying to get a “free lunch”. All of us in the crypto space have had to learn a hard lesson at some point and hopefully in the future the ones that bought post snapshot will be able to learn from this. As a council member one of our jobs is to put Illuvium protocol health above all. Again I am sorry for the folks that were negatively affected by this exploit but DAO funded reimbursement post snapshot is not in the best interest of the community or Illuvium and Through talks with the majority community members this is why I have voted No.

[daring tendon]

IIP-16 $sILV reimbursement

I voted no on IIP-16 because I don’t think reimbursing people from the DAO is right. I also decided to personally reimburse people who traded in the sILV pool up to an hour after our rescue transaction. I believe this is ample time to have been able to research why the token price had dropped so much, and there needs to be a cut-off point where traders accept responsibility for their trades.

[void ingot]

IIP-16 $sILV reimbursement

I have voted no on this proposal. It is our responsibility to assess community opinion separately from what is the best long-term outcome for the Illuvium DAO and vote accordingly. With regards to IIP-16, I felt that a 'no' vote was both the healthiest outcome for the DAO and observed overwhelming community support for such a vote. There should be no ambiguity in anything the DAO treasury uses funds for nor should we set a precedent that could ever allow for that.

Despite being a relatively straightforward vote, I am very aware of the negative impact inflicted upon a minority of community members. A 'no' vote should not be interpreted as if we are saying "tough luck". It is simply inappropriate to utilize DAO funds in this specific situation. It is impossible for any of us to discern the intent of the buyers and sellers after the announcement and the possibility of rewarding malicious actors with DAO funds is not acceptable. I empathize with those unfortunate enough to have traded sILV after the announcement without any ill-intent. It is a harsh lesson, but many of us have been through these sorts of events in crypto and have come out of it all the stronger. I know I certainly have.

[kind kindle]

IIP-16 $sILV reimbursement

Echoing other council members, I have voted no on IIP-16. I believe that the current plan to reimburse LPs and trades before the announcement and rescue transaction is the most fair approach given the clear communication from the team across channels as the situation unfolded. I believe that reimbursing for anything past that sends the wrong message to the vast majority of the community who did not interact in the sILV pool after the series of announcements. It's hard to evaluate the intent of users who traded post announcement and, while the sum is relatively small, in principle the DAO should not endorse and/or engage in reimbursing potential loses arising from speculation. The power of Web3 is that users are in control and that requires a greater level of responsibility and ownership from all us. The situation is not ideal but believe this is a good test of what the DAO can/should reimburse. These unfortunate events serve as a test of how quickly the team and community responds in the face of adversity and am looking forward to rebuilding any potential trust that may have been lost along the way with the community. Onwards.

[shy hedge]

IIP-17 Delaying Seed/Team-Token Unlocks

I Vote Yes on this proposal!
This proposal is good news for the whole project and community!
This will allow more time for the Team to begin generating revenue at least through the upcoming Land Sale and Illuvatars.
As well as eliminating the dreaded March 31st sell pressure, which was predominantly dreaded because as the scope of the project has been greatly expanded from the original vision, the deadlines of the unlock had yet to be expanded, fortunately Illuvium has chosen VCs that suggested and agreed to this proposal!
I see no downside to Voting this in!

[wary comet]

IIP-17 Delaying Seed/Team-Token Unlocks

I voted yes on this one
This one is a straight win for everyone as I see it and also looks like the community agrees from the way chat has piped up. This shows how strong our investors are and their long term vision for the project. LFG!

[supple geode]

https://tenor.com/view/okay-ok-oh-yeah-oh-really-seriously-gif-12557049

[kind kindle]

Voted yes on this one. Always prioritize long-term thinking and what is best for the success of Illuvium. Good to see consensus on this and just goes to show how strong this community is.

[shy hedge]

IIP-18 Illuvium Staking v2

I vote Yes on this Proposal.
There has been some interesting discussion from the community on this proposal and I believe the clear conclusion is that the DAO needs to move forward on Staking V2 implementation, as this is in the benefit of all!

I look forward to all regaining access to their stakes and reward claiming!

[wary comet]

IIP-18 Illuvium Staking v2
I vote Yes on this proposal
Staking V2 rollout is crucial to allowing the rest of the roadmap to proceed. There has been some interesting discussions around other possible changes, however, with the upgradability of V2, and no clear detriment in the current proposal, I believe it is best to push on with staking V2 and allow it to evolve over time if necisary.

I am greatful for the work that went into the extensive audits and now we can look forward to the rest of Illuvim

[supple geode]

IIP-18 Illuvium Staking v2

Approved. We had a lot of debates on the original proposal back then and then settled. The team worked and delivered what we agreed on. Multiple audits this time around is nice to see as well.

[daring tendon]

IIP-18 Illuvium Staking v2
I voted yes on this proposal.

• Gas optimisations
• Upgradeable contracts
• Easier to use
• More data

Whats not to approve?

[real thorn]

Bi-Weekly Council Meeting Recap (March 28)

[shy hedge]

IIP-19 Launch Staking Flash Pool for ApeCoin Token

I vote No on this Proposal.
-Data reviewed about past Flash Pools has shown they do not produce the outcome that they intend to efficiently.
-Additionally Yuga Labs have not responded so would not be partnering with us on this pool and their support and advertising of it was the only the way that it may have been worth doing...
-Not only is voting against this clearly in the DAOs best interests but also echoes the vast majority of community sentiment around this proposal.

[supple geode]

IIP-19 Launch Staking Flash Pool for ApeCoin Token

Declined. Following discussions in #809220563397902346 and after reviewing data presented by @crude minnow (thank you ser), my opinion wasnt changed about flashpools.

We should deprecate those like Kieran said and look to employ a different way to reach other communities if needed.

Our marketing team are getting the ball rolling faster and faster now and it's great to see. Plenty of huge marketing campaign are yet to come for major events and I think we are in good hands!

There is no need for future flashpools imo.

[wary comet]

**IIP-19 Launch Staking Flash Pool for ApeCoin Token
**
I voted to decline

Although there are some interesting opinions in favor the flash pool, seeing as we cant get a proper collaboration set up at this stage, along with the fact that there are some great alternative promotional options we can look at and finally, the data analytics considered, I'll be voting no on this one.

Also, wanted to thank @crude minnow for the data analytics, @rose pumice for the proposal that garnered a lot of great conversation and has generated other ideas that could be used in future collaborations and finally the community for some great discussion around the proposal

[real thorn]

Bi-Weekly Council Meeting in 30min; Recap soon afterwards

[real thorn]

Council Meeting Notes, Sorry for the delay

[kind kindle]

IIP-20

Voted: Yes

Overall supportive of the current structure. It's been discussed at length with the team, in the forums. Mechanism is fair IMO to prevent FOMOing. The structure is very clearly laid out and balanced across tiers to cater to different users. Furthermore, payment options of ETH and sILV2 also make a lot of sense, esp sILV2 to further bring utility to ILV in the long term.

Excited to see the land sale. It's been a long time in the making and appreciate the thoroughness of the team in putting safety first (with the multiple audits). This is the way!

[shy hedge]

IIP-20 Parameters for Illuvium: Zero Land Sale

I have Approved this proposal

-I believe that this proposal in its current form needs no further delay, it is overall in benefit for the DAO and for the majority of the Community.

-The new starting Prices and increased steepness of the decay curve are both informed by the current market sizes and prices of ETH and sILV2 and could be no better.

-The single point that I personally find unfortunate is that the community is only just now hearing about the fact that sILV2 would not be functional in the T5 bidding and since this must have been known far earlier internally, in my opinion it should have been publicly announced far sooner to give fair warning to those stacking sILV2 in preparation for the Land Sale.

-Certainly in future such information should be made public sooner, however in this situation I do not believe that further delaying the Land Sale to make adjustments on 2 plots of land is in the best interests of the DAO and the community at large.

Overall I look forward to observing and participating in the Land Sale alongside you all.

[wary comet]

IIP-20
I voted yes on this proposal

This IIP was one that was always going to cause a great deal of debate. There was some great discussion around the proposal and some valid concerns, however I do not believe there is any one point that warrents a change to the IIP.

The increase to starting price was something that I think was necisary. However, education on dutch auctions in the lead up to the land sale should be a priority.

The situation with sILV2 not being allowed for T5 is well summarised by Vetemor above

There was some interesting discussion around the varience of price for players with the fluctuating fuel costs. This should find a decent balance and not be detrimental to the experience of the game, however if it becomes a large point of friction in the future then it can be reassessed.

Finally with the delays, i think the deep auditing process is essential to protect the game in the long run, however clearer communication of such processes could aid in managing community expectations.

I'm excited for the land sale to start and find the true market value of the plots after the dutch auction is allowed to to its job

[supple geode]

IIP-20 Parameters for Illuvium : Zero Land sale

Approved as is.

Nice conversations and concerns rose from this proposal and I am still personally not fully convinced of certain parts of it but to go forward this is what is best right now.

As for communication with the team, we can improve.

Once the game is out, many concerns will evaporate including mines. I have seen what a fully fonctioning game can do to a market yesterday and it will be fucken crazy.

[minor oyster]

Come join the Illuvinati Council for the very first Council Town Hall Meeting

At this event, we will be selecting community members to direct any governance related questions to our serving council members (no wen questions please). Depending on time and questions asked we will aim to keep the meeting to 1 hour, so advanced apologies if we don't get to everyone. This will be the first of many Town Hall Meetings so there will be plenty of opportunities to raise your questions in the future.

Town hall starts at 21:00 UTC 4/27/22 don’t miss out! @here

[daring tendon]

@here
Reminder:
Town Hall meeting starting in a few minutes.

[real thorn]

Town Hall Recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxPQqZq9dlk

[shy hedge]

IIP-21 Illuvinati Council/ Governance Modifications

I have approved this proposal

• modifying Epoch length to 6 months is coming at the right time,
  the flexibility offered by 3 month epochs is no longer required imo as the protocol matures,
  if there are ineffective Council Members they can still be replaced through a vote of no confidence
  6 months also allows greater time for a sitting council to become more familiar with and proficient in such a role, both in themselves and in coordination with their fellow members
  if 6 month epochs turn out to be somehow less effective or beneficial due to some unforeseen reason this can always be reverted back to 3 month epochs also (although I do no foresee this need)

-Council Payments paid in stable coins rather than ILV makes sense due to current downturn in the market...

-official "Governance Forum" on the Illuvium website is in my opinion going to be huge for improving the way Illuvium can gauge community sentiment on different ideas/proposals and overall fine tune the functioning of Governance as a whole

[daring tendon]

Apologies, everyone, for not voting on IIP-21; things have been crazy the past week preparing for the land sale. I helped write it with DK, though, and I am 100% in favour.

[supple geode]

IIP-21

Approved.

• 3 months epochs were not long enough in my opinion. I have experienced many epochs and 6 months will give us more time to work in some proposals that were not timed right during those short epochs.

• Council stipend paid in stablecoin is the same end result if the treasury sells tokens at these prices for USD. If it doesnt need to because of reserves (actual case) then paying out in stablecoin saves the DAO tokens when the market is in the ground like right now.

• Governance forum : excited to see if this will be the change of dynamic we need around governance. No further opinion at this moment.

[real thorn]

Council Meeting Notes 6/15/22

[crude minnow]

I approve IIP-22 on Revenue Distribution.
RevDis is a critical mechanism within the Illuvium DAO, and I applaud Aaron and team for enabling a straightforward, understandable, and most of all, easily configurable mechanism for handling all amounts of revenue.
I am in favor of the minor adjustment to T from 20% to 15%, further smoothing the distribution of revenue amongst eligible tokens. The proposed R(min) and R(max) serving their purpose to manage large influxes of future revenue (R(max)), while maintaining an appropriate level of work for the team and minimizing expenses (R(min)).
As the project matures, the robustness of the underlying mechanism is easily adjustable by future councils to address any unanticipated issues that could arise.
With slippage set at a maximum of 3%, there is minimal means of losing value to those seeking to take advantage of the swaps by the DAO, while maintaining the desired positive pressure on ILV token price. This increases value for long-term holders and the Treasury alike.
For these reasons, I approve the IIP.

[shy hedge]

IIP-22 Revenue Distribution

I approve this proposal!

I believe this is the best possible first trial RevDis mechanism and that it stays true to the spirit of what Revenue Distribution is meant to be!
It also smooths out buys both to help us buy the highest possible number of ILV tokens (and loose as little as possible to slippage) as well as spreading things out and randomising buys to prevent market manipulation.

Minor shift from T = 20% to T = 15% I also support as its further smooths out the distribution (as at 20% its was a little too sharp/fast imo)

Disclaimer This mechanic is untested! Improvements/alterations may need to be made to this mechanic, but without data we cannot make effective changes, once we have info on how it functions for real we will be able to better asses what (if any) adjustments need making.

[languid ibex]

Approved IIP-22

• Clever mechanic that allows council to change variables if seen fit
• Clear consensus on the current variables, although personally would have liked to see a longer drawn out distribution.

[kind kindle]

Approved IIP-22

Consistent with other council member's reasoning, this mechanic is straightforward and also gives us margin to change variables as we go.

[kind kindle]

Declined IIP-23

Need some tweaking after extensive discussions and input from the community. Stay tuned for IIP-24

[shy hedge]

IIP-23

I voted No on this proposal

Proposal is solid but needs a few changes, primarily a cap on the amount of tokens that Team token holders are permitted to sell on the Forge...
IIP-24 Inbound 👀

[crude minnow]

I have chosen to vote No on IIP-023
This was a complicated discussion, and I believe it is in the best interest of the DAO to not approve IIP-023 as written.
At the center of this proposal is an idea that I strongly believe in; The Forge as a means to democratize future capital raises by the DAO, enabling everyone to participate with the same terms.
However, as Kieran highlighted in his comments, there were oversights in this IIP as it is presented for vote today that must be addressed. To demonstrate how Illuvium does things differently and to further earn and confirm the trust of new investors who we want recruit via the Forge, it is important to do things right.
Therefore, it only makes sense to vote no today, and work together to ensure the next version of the proposal address these issues to show how Illuvium is truly unique and revolutionary.

[languid ibex]

Approved IIP-23

#809220563397902346 message

https://tenor.com/view/goat-chill-cool-gif-13024487

[real thorn]

Council Meeting: Concluded 6/30/22 01:00 UTC Will post notes as soon as edited and approved by Council.

[real thorn]

Council Meeting Notes : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fZsuAdJkDzVpn6m3AwmLOPtqM-L2UJid7z9LL9WDtVQ/edit#

[real thorn]

Council Meeting <t:1657717200:F> Will post notes shortly after meeting conclusion and note editing

[languid ibex]

Hey everyone, for this and any other council meetings, feel free to DM or ping me about things you would like the council to talk about. Doesn’t matter if you voted me or not, if there is something the community wants the council to discuss about I will try my best to make it happen.

As long as it’s appropriate

[real thorn]

**Update on Council Meeting Today: Everyone Attended including Perry | Illuvium. We had Perry on to help share the data driven said of what Illuvitar pricing looks like and this took up all of our meeting time today but got some things across that needed to be addressed. The end result of the meeting, is we adjourned to have an additional meeting later this week to finalize opinons on a couple different models Perry will be presenting us then. So final meeting notes will be posted after our meeting later this week. Thanks for the patience guys and gals. **